Cleanup on aisle 47857... December 26, 2005 11:40 PM Subscribe
Cleanup on aisle 47857... Aw, to hell with it. I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Blah, I don't get why people get so worked up about Paris. He's just so cartoonish these days. Who cares? Need to learn to ignore him.
posted by delmoi at 1:04 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by delmoi at 1:04 AM on December 27, 2005
I wonder how much the claim by the mob that PP is a troll and that he shits in threads ends up actually defining his contributions as such regardless of whatever his contributions are?
posted by panoptican at 1:04 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by panoptican at 1:04 AM on December 27, 2005
Eh, not so much. He's self-defined.
posted by loquacious at 1:14 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by loquacious at 1:14 AM on December 27, 2005
Perhaps to an extent. It seems to me that the second PP comments though, the response is invariably TROLL SHIT THREAD PP IS CRAZY. And well, as delmoi says, if you do indeed believe him to be a troll wouldn't ignoring him be the best thing to do? The point of trolling afterall is to illicit response. Absent that, there is no troll.
posted by panoptican at 1:20 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by panoptican at 1:20 AM on December 27, 2005
a super-duper easy way of sorting the blocking of individual users would be to wrap each individiual comment in a DIV with class="user[userID]", then do ye olde display:none; CSS trick.
This would necessitate being able to have custom stylesheets, tho. *adds to mile-long list of ponies*
posted by slater at 1:32 AM on December 27, 2005
This would necessitate being able to have custom stylesheets, tho. *adds to mile-long list of ponies*
posted by slater at 1:32 AM on December 27, 2005
This is clearly an important species we're dealing with here. We can't just arbitrarily exterminate them..
posted by gsb at 1:39 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by gsb at 1:39 AM on December 27, 2005
I think there is an element of martyr complex for people who respond to PP. When there is a poster who goes insane or makes illogical comments, I don't go out and create a kill file, I simply ignore them.
To all that proclaim Paris a troll and then respond to his posts, you are a person who is crying about a burning house while you pour gas on the floor of the kitchen. Which means they then can proudly proclaim how they have been the vicim of a troll.
Screw that hippy; learn to ignore him or stop whining.
posted by Dagobert at 2:07 AM on December 27, 2005
To all that proclaim Paris a troll and then respond to his posts, you are a person who is crying about a burning house while you pour gas on the floor of the kitchen. Which means they then can proudly proclaim how they have been the vicim of a troll.
Screw that hippy; learn to ignore him or stop whining.
posted by Dagobert at 2:07 AM on December 27, 2005
Isn't the whole point of MeFi to contribute to the conversation or the site in some way?
Nobody has been able to tell me what PP contributes, yet.
posted by wakko at 2:20 AM on December 27, 2005
Nobody has been able to tell me what PP contributes, yet.
posted by wakko at 2:20 AM on December 27, 2005
PP is good fun if you read his comments in a Richard Nixon voice.
Even better if you read them as Martha Stewart.
posted by Jimbob at 2:55 AM on December 27, 2005
Even better if you read them as Martha Stewart.
posted by Jimbob at 2:55 AM on December 27, 2005
But he's scary when he uses his Charlton Heston voice.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:59 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:59 AM on December 27, 2005
This is like an elementary schoolyard fight. Solipse calls him a dumbshit troll, Paris takes the bait and then a pile on ensues. "Poopiepants"? I think we are talking about the first and second grade classes on the schoolyard, or do they let kindergarteners in too? Give it a rest guys.
posted by caddis at 4:20 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by caddis at 4:20 AM on December 27, 2005
The history of Paramus is kind of interesting, after last night's roundabout I thought I would check on Paris's past. He actually promised to be nicer back in August.
When he first appeared on Me-Fi he was. . . a very different person indeed. I can see where some have said that he's either gone of the deep end or some other person is using his account.
posted by mk1gti at 4:30 AM on December 27, 2005
When he first appeared on Me-Fi he was. . . a very different person indeed. I can see where some have said that he's either gone of the deep end or some other person is using his account.
posted by mk1gti at 4:30 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus is Ed Koch.
Isn't it only trolling when you don't believe what you are writing, but only doing it to create a dust-up? For the most part, PP seems sincere (or at least consistent) in what he writes, even if he does it in a highly provocative manner. It's a grey area to be sure.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 4:44 AM on December 27, 2005
Isn't it only trolling when you don't believe what you are writing, but only doing it to create a dust-up? For the most part, PP seems sincere (or at least consistent) in what he writes, even if he does it in a highly provocative manner. It's a grey area to be sure.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 4:44 AM on December 27, 2005
I don't know, sometimes I wonder if he's just doing it for a bizarre form of high comedy, some of the comments are so pathetic no one could hope to take them seriously. It's almost like he's mocking the right by being the perfect definition of a 'stalwart party hack'. i.e. 'My president can do no wrong, no matter how wrong he is.' kinda thing. . .
posted by mk1gti at 4:48 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 4:48 AM on December 27, 2005
I find the argument (which crops up more and more frequently, with apparent seriousness) that PP is not a troll to be somewhat confusing. It requires me to forget my definition for "troll". And I just can't believe that anybody would really believe the positions he espouses, prior to espousing them. Maybe he talks himself into them...
E.g., how can we take seriously his "the real democrats are asleep" riff? He sounds like a Jets fan living in San Francisco circa 1982. Yo, dude, it's not even your city. It's like he's got to find the weakest kid on the playground and punch him around while he makes a big show out of telling the kid it's for his own good, he's just making him tough. What's more, it's not even a real kid -- it's a dummy he made up out of twigs and straw and an old t-shirt with "Wussy Dems" scrawled on the front. So he's putting on a sick show of putting on a sick show.
I am seriously curious to know what this guy gets up to with his dominatrix.
Maybe it's high-concept comedy. I think it's more on the lines of performance art, which is how I think of "dhoyt": After a while, the role becomes you, or you become the role, or they blend together. I doubt that PP really knows what he "actually" believes anymore.
posted by lodurr at 5:01 AM on December 27, 2005
E.g., how can we take seriously his "the real democrats are asleep" riff? He sounds like a Jets fan living in San Francisco circa 1982. Yo, dude, it's not even your city. It's like he's got to find the weakest kid on the playground and punch him around while he makes a big show out of telling the kid it's for his own good, he's just making him tough. What's more, it's not even a real kid -- it's a dummy he made up out of twigs and straw and an old t-shirt with "Wussy Dems" scrawled on the front. So he's putting on a sick show of putting on a sick show.
I am seriously curious to know what this guy gets up to with his dominatrix.
Maybe it's high-concept comedy. I think it's more on the lines of performance art, which is how I think of "dhoyt": After a while, the role becomes you, or you become the role, or they blend together. I doubt that PP really knows what he "actually" believes anymore.
posted by lodurr at 5:01 AM on December 27, 2005
Eventually, immature leftish posters will realize that a sense of humor they can't grasp, and posting a link to respected journal that contradicts their paranoia, is not trolling.
But I'm not sure I have the discipline to get to Eventually...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:05 AM on December 27, 2005
But I'm not sure I have the discipline to get to Eventually...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:05 AM on December 27, 2005
Tommy Gnosis : "Isn't it only trolling when you don't believe what you are writing, but only doing it to create a dust-up?"
Recently, the net seems to be of two minds on this: Us old-schoolers use this definition (saying something you don't believe in order to get a rise), but many/most new-schoolers use a different definition (phrasing something a certain way in order to get a rise, whether you believe it or not). It's been discussed round and round here, and there is no consensus.
posted by Bugbread at 5:07 AM on December 27, 2005
Recently, the net seems to be of two minds on this: Us old-schoolers use this definition (saying something you don't believe in order to get a rise), but many/most new-schoolers use a different definition (phrasing something a certain way in order to get a rise, whether you believe it or not). It's been discussed round and round here, and there is no consensus.
posted by Bugbread at 5:07 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus : "Eventually, immature leftish posters will realize that a sense of humor they can't grasp, and posting a link to respected journal that contradicts their paranoia, is not trolling."
Agreed. And I assume you agree with the corollary, that eventually, immature rightish posters will realize that a sense of humor they can't grasp, and posting a link to respected journal that contradicts their paranoia, is not trolling. Agreed?
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 AM on December 27, 2005
Agreed. And I assume you agree with the corollary, that eventually, immature rightish posters will realize that a sense of humor they can't grasp, and posting a link to respected journal that contradicts their paranoia, is not trolling. Agreed?
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 AM on December 27, 2005
bugbread, levity and comedy are always in a context. When 99% of contributors in a post are saying that the Bush Adminstration in Orwellian, I think its fair for the 1% who disagree to say so, and to use various devices to make a point. And then when I am accused of being a Republican, I respond that I am not.
I provided my opinion and a link or two to substantiate it, and am called a troll, and told so with potty and masturbation humor. Should I just abandon the Mefi ship? Whatever a troll is, I am not one.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:41 AM on December 27, 2005
I provided my opinion and a link or two to substantiate it, and am called a troll, and told so with potty and masturbation humor. Should I just abandon the Mefi ship? Whatever a troll is, I am not one.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:41 AM on December 27, 2005
Should I just abandon the Mefi ship?
Ok, now you're just being a tease.
posted by loquacious at 5:46 AM on December 27, 2005
Ok, now you're just being a tease.
posted by loquacious at 5:46 AM on December 27, 2005
As a democrat, Paris, what do you believe in, politically?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:47 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 5:47 AM on December 27, 2005
I am "hawkish" on foreign policy, but otherwise liberal. I think corporations are underregulated in certain ways; I believe in unemployment and the minimum wage; a stronger role for the government in promoting environmental, transportation and energy policy. I also believe I will be late to court if I write any more.
But, did you know that Haliburton has made less money off Iraq than Michael Moore?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:51 AM on December 27, 2005
But, did you know that Haliburton has made less money off Iraq than Michael Moore?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:51 AM on December 27, 2005
The only real difference between the average political thread comment and a ParisParamus political thread comment is that more people agree with the average comment. There are a lot of left-wing ParisParamus equivalents here on MeFi that people don't call trolls because they agree with them.
posted by fred_ashmore at 6:18 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by fred_ashmore at 6:18 AM on December 27, 2005
But, did you know that Haliburton has made less money off Iraq than Michael Moore?
------------------------------------
Michael Moore has made several billion dollars off of Iraq? My head 'splodes . . .
posted by mk1gti at 6:19 AM on December 27, 2005
But seriously PP, in August you had a thread in which you said you were going to be more civil, could you please, please do so?
posted by mk1gti at 6:20 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 6:20 AM on December 27, 2005
Paris: How do you define "trolling"?
I personally think that posting stuff with no other purpose than to incite flame wars to be trolling. So the only question that remains before we decide whether or not you're a troll is not really whether you believe what you say -- it's whether you get off on the fight that follows.
And it's abundantly clear that you do.
You are, by that token, a troll. You are in it for the stroke factor, dude.
posted by lodurr at 6:24 AM on December 27, 2005
I personally think that posting stuff with no other purpose than to incite flame wars to be trolling. So the only question that remains before we decide whether or not you're a troll is not really whether you believe what you say -- it's whether you get off on the fight that follows.
And it's abundantly clear that you do.
You are, by that token, a troll. You are in it for the stroke factor, dude.
posted by lodurr at 6:24 AM on December 27, 2005
I think its fair for the 1% who disagree to say so, and to use various devices to make a point.
And if you'd describe the devices and their use, lodurr might have his serious curiosity slaked.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:28 AM on December 27, 2005
And if you'd describe the devices and their use, lodurr might have his serious curiosity slaked.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:28 AM on December 27, 2005
I think it is really funny that the moment Paris makes a comment a section of Mefites are revealed as fascists.
There are people in society who are generally considered to contribute nothing to that society, but they still have a right to exist, and to say whatever the hell they want.
There can be no Metafilter Love It Or Leave It.
Good for Paris, Mefite Of The Year 2005.
posted by Joeforking at 6:52 AM on December 27, 2005
There are people in society who are generally considered to contribute nothing to that society, but they still have a right to exist, and to say whatever the hell they want.
There can be no Metafilter Love It Or Leave It.
Good for Paris, Mefite Of The Year 2005.
posted by Joeforking at 6:52 AM on December 27, 2005
as delmoi says, if you do indeed believe him to be a troll wouldn't ignoring him be the best thing to do?
Because people actually enjoy getting mad at him, and he enjoys being raged at. It's a win-win. Me thinks everyone doth protest too much.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on December 27, 2005
Because people actually enjoy getting mad at him, and he enjoys being raged at. It's a win-win. Me thinks everyone doth protest too much.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on December 27, 2005
a super-duper easy way of sorting the blocking of individual users would be to wrap each individiual comment in a DIV with class="user[userID]", then do ye olde display:none; CSS trick.
Which will have the distinct advantage of creating threads with that special flavor of raving schizophrenia as otherwise sensible people quote phantom posters, growling and snapping at thin air.
Killfiles do fuck all if people still respond to the kill-ee.
posted by mph at 7:01 AM on December 27, 2005
Which will have the distinct advantage of creating threads with that special flavor of raving schizophrenia as otherwise sensible people quote phantom posters, growling and snapping at thin air.
Killfiles do fuck all if people still respond to the kill-ee.
posted by mph at 7:01 AM on December 27, 2005
because the NYT is liberal shit
That's from Paris' first post in the thread, which had no other instances of "shit" or "fuck" before he showed up.
immature leftish posters
*laughs* Paris, you started off in that thread being a total dick, so please don't try putting the blame anywhere else for how the discussion went from there. It's stupid and makes you look like a fool. Come on, be a little more mature, hon. We know you can do it for short periods, and you *did* promise, after all...
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on December 27, 2005
That's from Paris' first post in the thread, which had no other instances of "shit" or "fuck" before he showed up.
immature leftish posters
*laughs* Paris, you started off in that thread being a total dick, so please don't try putting the blame anywhere else for how the discussion went from there. It's stupid and makes you look like a fool. Come on, be a little more mature, hon. We know you can do it for short periods, and you *did* promise, after all...
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on December 27, 2005
Joeforking: Good for Paris, Mefite Of The Year 2005.Oh, please. Fascist? As thought that word actually still meant anything useful...
Here's a scenario for you. You're at a bar on a Tuesday night. Somebody comes in and starts going around getting in people's faces, dressing them down for -- oh, I don't know, wearing French Cuffs on their dress shirts because it means that they're anti-American. Or drinking Tsing Tao because it means they must be commie-simps. And then getting high and mighty when people tell him he's rude or argue back, saying that they're repressing him for his opinions.
Would it be "fascist" to suggest that the proprietor kick the guy out?
The only important difference between that drunk and ParisParamus is that Paris gets to hide behind the ideology of tolerance that is part of core moderate beliefs in America. The same ideology that informs your own post. Paris isn't going anywhere [sic] because to remove him would expose Matt and, more importantly, Metafilter, to criticism for HYPOCRISY.
And stop feeding the little narcissist's ego. He's just not that important.
--
For the record, I don't think that PP ought to be made to go or even time-outed, on principle. But given the way that MeFi currently works at an instrumental level, it would probably make a lot of the patrons in this bar a lot more comfortable. And despite common net.wisdom, being comfortable is not an inherently bad thing.
posted by lodurr at 7:07 AM on December 27, 2005
well, jonmc, you're obviously right; if at least some people didn't enjoy getting mad at him, he wouldn't stick around. But it doesn't have to be very many people. After all, there are usually a few people in that hypothetical bar who enjoy the fact that the guy's going around berating everyone.
It's a phenomenon I've been observing for many years, but never yet tried to put a name to. A kind of quasi-Erisian belief in the inherent value of provocation; it's part-anarchism, part net.libertarianism, part assholism; people who believe in it tend to think the rise of Punk'd TV is a Good Thing. "Provocationalism" just isn't doing it for me, though. Any suggestions?
posted by lodurr at 7:13 AM on December 27, 2005
It's a phenomenon I've been observing for many years, but never yet tried to put a name to. A kind of quasi-Erisian belief in the inherent value of provocation; it's part-anarchism, part net.libertarianism, part assholism; people who believe in it tend to think the rise of Punk'd TV is a Good Thing. "Provocationalism" just isn't doing it for me, though. Any suggestions?
posted by lodurr at 7:13 AM on December 27, 2005
A kind of quasi-Erisian belief in the inherent value of provocation;
Hey, provocation is good, just like oral sex, but a modicum of skill is required to do either one well.
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on December 27, 2005
Hey, provocation is good, just like oral sex, but a modicum of skill is required to do either one well.
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on December 27, 2005
Please remove everything from the thread instead of "Reddish Knob, VA."
Thank you.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:17 AM on December 27, 2005
Thank you.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:17 AM on December 27, 2005
There's this guy I used to know in college. Let's call him Buck. He was a messed-up guy; he was a Jewish kid, raised by camp survivor parents in the South Bronx in the '70s. He was a lot like Paris in that he'd do and say outrageous things just to get people to pay attention to him. He was actually a very sharp guy, once you scratched through the bizarro behaviors (like carrying around a polaroid of a woman in a casket, that he'd found on the ground, or saying out of the blue "Hitler had a lot of good ideas" in a room full of Jewish Student Union people).
At some point, he moved in to a house with a bunch of friends of mine. The guys upstairs loved manipulating him for their own amusement. The guys downstairs thought that was pretty boring. They were also much more interesting people, and Buck wanted their approval really badly. But if he did or said outrageous things, they'd just tell him to leave: "Buck, you know how it works -- if you want to stay, you have to be normal."
And Normal-Buck was actually not such a bad guy. Like I said, he was actually pretty smart, and he had a positive gift for seeing things from other people's perspectives that manifested most clearly in his ability to suck up to professors of any political stripe. (Though you could tell he found himself a little unclean after doing so.)
One of the guys upstairs came around after a while and started treating Buck well. He kept up with him after school. Last I heard, he'd gotten a good job, bought a house in Queens, gotten married and had kids.
posted by lodurr at 7:23 AM on December 27, 2005
At some point, he moved in to a house with a bunch of friends of mine. The guys upstairs loved manipulating him for their own amusement. The guys downstairs thought that was pretty boring. They were also much more interesting people, and Buck wanted their approval really badly. But if he did or said outrageous things, they'd just tell him to leave: "Buck, you know how it works -- if you want to stay, you have to be normal."
And Normal-Buck was actually not such a bad guy. Like I said, he was actually pretty smart, and he had a positive gift for seeing things from other people's perspectives that manifested most clearly in his ability to suck up to professors of any political stripe. (Though you could tell he found himself a little unclean after doing so.)
One of the guys upstairs came around after a while and started treating Buck well. He kept up with him after school. Last I heard, he'd gotten a good job, bought a house in Queens, gotten married and had kids.
posted by lodurr at 7:23 AM on December 27, 2005
I still fail to understand people's slavering outrage at PP.
Honestly - and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty - I don't find Paris's comments that offensive.
What is with you guys? We all know the blue is awash with tired leftyisms and armchair protesters - Paris is really one of the only people willing to lay down that off-the-cuff, Hannety-like hand-grenade comment that attempts to immediately trivialize the entire discussion.
Part of me believes that all you PP-haters have never really tried to participate in on-line open forums before - that none of you really, really understand what a troll is.
Allow me to provide you with a (fictionalized) example of typical trollish behavior:
FPP = "Soldier from Muskegon dies in Iraq, wife is notified on Christmas morning."
IntertronUser: "How tragic, another American life lost in this needless pursuit of foreign oil properties."
TRoLLB0yXx: "U woud say taht - yer teh librul pussies need to go an fight these arabscum - I was ther an I fougt in the war, u don no ANYTHING. u r such pussies i bet u have sex with yer mom and with a duck. all u liberals do is suport teh terrorist so YOU = TERRORIST i hope u die becaus freedom isnt free. john 3:16"
If you'll visit other, less regulated boards, you will be able to examine trolls in their natural habitats.
PLEASE, Paris is not a troll. He is espousing his genuine opinion, he is generally grammatically correct an coherent, and he adds a delicate spice to the blue stew.
Please don't ban him, or call for his banning. It's trivial and childish. So many of you are only bashing on him because you disagree with his politics, and in all honesty he ALWAYS waits for the first ad hominem before he flings out "lefty losers" and other such crap.
Also - I've noticed a stupid, stupid trend in how people deal with comments akin to Paris'.
Paris: "This is just another tired rehash of the ultra-left's typical response to their failure in gaining political ground over the last six years etc..."
Poster A: "No way, Paris. I disagree with you. This article is actually quite insightful and provides the new argument ABC etc."
PosterB: PLEEZ DON'T FEED TEH TROLLZ POSTERA!!!!!!!!!
This pisses me off in the extreme. PosterB is USING PosterA's reasoned response to Paris' reasoned comment to attack PP. This is also childish, and I resolve to call people out on this in the future.
I also placed this at the bottom of this MeTa post, because I don't want the pitchfork wielding PP haters to start coming after me. But I hope Paris sees this because I don't want to lose his interesting additions to blue just because a few regulars can't stomach his off-the-cuff politicisms.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:24 AM on December 27, 2005
Honestly - and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty - I don't find Paris's comments that offensive.
What is with you guys? We all know the blue is awash with tired leftyisms and armchair protesters - Paris is really one of the only people willing to lay down that off-the-cuff, Hannety-like hand-grenade comment that attempts to immediately trivialize the entire discussion.
Part of me believes that all you PP-haters have never really tried to participate in on-line open forums before - that none of you really, really understand what a troll is.
Allow me to provide you with a (fictionalized) example of typical trollish behavior:
FPP = "Soldier from Muskegon dies in Iraq, wife is notified on Christmas morning."
IntertronUser: "How tragic, another American life lost in this needless pursuit of foreign oil properties."
TRoLLB0yXx: "U woud say taht - yer teh librul pussies need to go an fight these arabscum - I was ther an I fougt in the war, u don no ANYTHING. u r such pussies i bet u have sex with yer mom and with a duck. all u liberals do is suport teh terrorist so YOU = TERRORIST i hope u die becaus freedom isnt free. john 3:16"
If you'll visit other, less regulated boards, you will be able to examine trolls in their natural habitats.
PLEASE, Paris is not a troll. He is espousing his genuine opinion, he is generally grammatically correct an coherent, and he adds a delicate spice to the blue stew.
Please don't ban him, or call for his banning. It's trivial and childish. So many of you are only bashing on him because you disagree with his politics, and in all honesty he ALWAYS waits for the first ad hominem before he flings out "lefty losers" and other such crap.
Also - I've noticed a stupid, stupid trend in how people deal with comments akin to Paris'.
Paris: "This is just another tired rehash of the ultra-left's typical response to their failure in gaining political ground over the last six years etc..."
Poster A: "No way, Paris. I disagree with you. This article is actually quite insightful and provides the new argument ABC etc."
PosterB: PLEEZ DON'T FEED TEH TROLLZ POSTERA!!!!!!!!!
This pisses me off in the extreme. PosterB is USING PosterA's reasoned response to Paris' reasoned comment to attack PP. This is also childish, and I resolve to call people out on this in the future.
I also placed this at the bottom of this MeTa post, because I don't want the pitchfork wielding PP haters to start coming after me. But I hope Paris sees this because I don't want to lose his interesting additions to blue just because a few regulars can't stomach his off-the-cuff politicisms.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:24 AM on December 27, 2005
jonmc: ... but a modicum of skill is required to do either one well.... and if that's all you ever do, it can kind of spoil you for the real thing. Or leave scars.
posted by lodurr at 7:26 AM on December 27, 2005
"grammatically correct an coherent"
whaf ith thisth? ith tasthes like ...it tasthes like my footh.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:26 AM on December 27, 2005
whaf ith thisth? ith tasthes like ...it tasthes like my footh.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:26 AM on December 27, 2005
Baby_balrog, I really don't see how you can think that Paris isn't a troll. I think you have a far, far more extreme definition of hte term than most people.
That said, I agree that people over-react to him. I also don't think it's a big deal for people to want to be rid of him. He's a nuisance; he adds no value.
I don't agree that his comments are "insightful", by and large. As I said in a deleted thread, I have seen some that I regarded as such. They had to do, obliquely, with the paradoxes inherent in being a politically conservative jew in America. (Though that's not what the comments were overtly about, of course.) But for the most part, it's about 30% unsubstantiated hyperbole, like the "grenade" above abotu Michael Moore and Halliburton, 30% whining about being persecuted for his political views, and 30% re-hashing those same political views in the most inciteful way that he can think of.
I haven't personally found any of paris's views "interesting" in the same way that I might one of, say, mischief, or loquax, or even dios.
You want a provocative pig-headed not-troll, dios is your poster boy, not Paris. The giveaway is the attitude on closing. Paris is always cool -- nothing phases him. The fact that dios flies off the handle is what distinguishes him from the trolls -- he actually cares about teh argument. (I'll cop to having gotten that wrong in the past.)
Paris just cares about the attention. It's all political bukakke to him. His positions and statements are "real" in the same sense as those that come out of the mouth of a professional S&M sub.
posted by lodurr at 7:40 AM on December 27, 2005
That said, I agree that people over-react to him. I also don't think it's a big deal for people to want to be rid of him. He's a nuisance; he adds no value.
I don't agree that his comments are "insightful", by and large. As I said in a deleted thread, I have seen some that I regarded as such. They had to do, obliquely, with the paradoxes inherent in being a politically conservative jew in America. (Though that's not what the comments were overtly about, of course.) But for the most part, it's about 30% unsubstantiated hyperbole, like the "grenade" above abotu Michael Moore and Halliburton, 30% whining about being persecuted for his political views, and 30% re-hashing those same political views in the most inciteful way that he can think of.
I haven't personally found any of paris's views "interesting" in the same way that I might one of, say, mischief, or loquax, or even dios.
You want a provocative pig-headed not-troll, dios is your poster boy, not Paris. The giveaway is the attitude on closing. Paris is always cool -- nothing phases him. The fact that dios flies off the handle is what distinguishes him from the trolls -- he actually cares about teh argument. (I'll cop to having gotten that wrong in the past.)
Paris just cares about the attention. It's all political bukakke to him. His positions and statements are "real" in the same sense as those that come out of the mouth of a professional S&M sub.
posted by lodurr at 7:40 AM on December 27, 2005
TRoLLB0yXx: "U woud say taht - yer teh librul pussies need to go an fight these arabscum - I was ther an I fougt in the war, u don no ANYTHING. u r such pussies i bet u have sex with yer mom and with a duck. all u liberals do is suport teh terrorist so YOU = TERRORIST i hope u die becaus freedom isnt free. john 3:16"
Of all the definitions of troll in this thread, this is the least accurate. That's just a simple moron.
B1FF was a troll. The semi-fictional TRollB0yXx is a chromosomally damaged encephalitic troglodyte. Yes, they exist in vast quantities all over this modern internet, but they're witless, artless, hamfisted, wrongheaded, and clumsy.
Such a character would likely spontaneously burst into flames mere seconds after registering an account here and making their first post.
Trolling is precision work. Not the random incoherent gibberings of a Mountain Dew soaked 10 year old that just recently discovered masturbation and hormones.
ParisParamus is a self defined troll. He's openly stated it at least once. Ach, I don't know where the link is. I'm at work. I'm working an unusual early morning shift. I've slept little. And I'm only on my second cup of coffee. Hopefully someone with more mental fortitude than I can dig up the link(s).
Not feeding the troll is a fine idea - in theory. But there's a few thousand active users, and goodness knows how many registered lurkers. Getting that "NO FEEDING PARIS" message out there wouldn't be easy.
Above and beyond the accusations of trolling, I support the argument PP doesn't really contribute much of anything. At least I haven't seen any such thing. His standard tactic is to taunt people then run away. From what I've seen, he rarely - if never provides - supporting links, or even reasoned arguments. It's generally just malformed gum flapping thinly disguised as counterpoint that is designed to provoke.
There have been good "Right wing" debaters here at MeFi. I've seen them welcomed, and I personally find them valueable. PP is certainly not one of them.
posted by loquacious at 7:43 AM on December 27, 2005
Of all the definitions of troll in this thread, this is the least accurate. That's just a simple moron.
B1FF was a troll. The semi-fictional TRollB0yXx is a chromosomally damaged encephalitic troglodyte. Yes, they exist in vast quantities all over this modern internet, but they're witless, artless, hamfisted, wrongheaded, and clumsy.
Such a character would likely spontaneously burst into flames mere seconds after registering an account here and making their first post.
Trolling is precision work. Not the random incoherent gibberings of a Mountain Dew soaked 10 year old that just recently discovered masturbation and hormones.
ParisParamus is a self defined troll. He's openly stated it at least once. Ach, I don't know where the link is. I'm at work. I'm working an unusual early morning shift. I've slept little. And I'm only on my second cup of coffee. Hopefully someone with more mental fortitude than I can dig up the link(s).
Not feeding the troll is a fine idea - in theory. But there's a few thousand active users, and goodness knows how many registered lurkers. Getting that "NO FEEDING PARIS" message out there wouldn't be easy.
Above and beyond the accusations of trolling, I support the argument PP doesn't really contribute much of anything. At least I haven't seen any such thing. His standard tactic is to taunt people then run away. From what I've seen, he rarely - if never provides - supporting links, or even reasoned arguments. It's generally just malformed gum flapping thinly disguised as counterpoint that is designed to provoke.
There have been good "Right wing" debaters here at MeFi. I've seen them welcomed, and I personally find them valueable. PP is certainly not one of them.
posted by loquacious at 7:43 AM on December 27, 2005
Baby_Balrog: I think the "grammatically incorrect" aspect of trolls is a side-trait, not a defining trait. For example, most men enjoy sex with women, but that's not a defining trait of men. You wouldn't say that a gay guy isn't a man because he doesn't enjoy sex with women (ok, well, I don't know your personal politics, so maybe you would, but I doubt it).
In the same way, most of what you say about trolls is spot on, but saying a person isn't a troll because they use proper grammar is like saying a gay isn't a man because he likes sex with other men. It's mistaking a statistical likelihood as a defining parameter.
posted by Bugbread at 7:44 AM on December 27, 2005
In the same way, most of what you say about trolls is spot on, but saying a person isn't a troll because they use proper grammar is like saying a gay isn't a man because he likes sex with other men. It's mistaking a statistical likelihood as a defining parameter.
posted by Bugbread at 7:44 AM on December 27, 2005
all honesty he ALWAYS waits for the first ad hominem before he flings out "lefty losers" and other such crap. posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:24 AM PST on December 27
So in other words, this has been going on for decades, but because the NYT is liberal shit, and George Bush is President, it sees fit to create a news story...
first comment posted by ParisParamus at 10:07 PM GMT on December 26
I think that the bolded text disproves your point about ad hominems. Plus, there is the irrational characterisation of the NYT as 'liberal', when in fact it is the press institution most responsible - via Judy Miller - for providing cover to the duplicity of the Chalabites and the Cheneyites in the Iraq War Party.
I personally wish PP was more logical, less insulting and - more importantly - stuck around to respond in a coherent fashion when challenged on his arguments. He rarely provides sufficient credible linkage, but lots of his own rather unpopular opinion. So be it: credibility is all round here.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
So in other words, this has been going on for decades, but because the NYT is liberal shit, and George Bush is President, it sees fit to create a news story...
first comment posted by ParisParamus at 10:07 PM GMT on December 26
I think that the bolded text disproves your point about ad hominems. Plus, there is the irrational characterisation of the NYT as 'liberal', when in fact it is the press institution most responsible - via Judy Miller - for providing cover to the duplicity of the Chalabites and the Cheneyites in the Iraq War Party.
I personally wish PP was more logical, less insulting and - more importantly - stuck around to respond in a coherent fashion when challenged on his arguments. He rarely provides sufficient credible linkage, but lots of his own rather unpopular opinion. So be it: credibility is all round here.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
I guess my comment yesterday pretty much summed it up:
parisparamus: fapfapfap
mefi'ers: FAPFAPFAP
Everyone: FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP! ! !
Paris Paramus: "Look mommie! I gotta 'nuther 'pearl necklace'!!!
Everyone: yeeeeeaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh ! ! !
What was the topic again?
----------------------
I wouldn't mind Paris's feedback, but it really is clear and inarguable trolling, nothing more.
posted by mk1gti at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
parisparamus: fapfapfap
mefi'ers: FAPFAPFAP
Everyone: FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP! ! !
Paris Paramus: "Look mommie! I gotta 'nuther 'pearl necklace'!!!
Everyone: yeeeeeaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh ! ! !
What was the topic again?
----------------------
I wouldn't mind Paris's feedback, but it really is clear and inarguable trolling, nothing more.
posted by mk1gti at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
Er, none of that was meant to imply any equivalency between homosexuals and trolls. It was just about the act of confusing likelihoods with definitions. Sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 7:46 AM on December 27, 2005
I think corporations are underregulated in certain ways; I believe in unemployment and the minimum wage; a stronger role for the government in promoting environmental, transportation and energy policy.
I don't know why you would want more regs for corporations, esp. wrt promoting environmental, transportation and energy policy, and yet so passionately worship at the feet of the neo-monarchical GW Bush. His energy policy rides roughshod over transparency in government, his drilling in ANWR despoils the wilderness, his transportation insists on ID to fly state-to-state, and he wants the right - not under legislation passed by the legislature, but under the congressional approval of the post 9/11 resolutions for military action - to snoop on US citizens without a warrant.
Why do you want more regs for corps, but less regs for the most powerful; (and therefore most dangerous) man in the world?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:52 AM on December 27, 2005
I don't know why you would want more regs for corporations, esp. wrt promoting environmental, transportation and energy policy, and yet so passionately worship at the feet of the neo-monarchical GW Bush. His energy policy rides roughshod over transparency in government, his drilling in ANWR despoils the wilderness, his transportation insists on ID to fly state-to-state, and he wants the right - not under legislation passed by the legislature, but under the congressional approval of the post 9/11 resolutions for military action - to snoop on US citizens without a warrant.
Why do you want more regs for corps, but less regs for the most powerful; (and therefore most dangerous) man in the world?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:52 AM on December 27, 2005
a sense of humor they can't grasp
Mmmmn, no. Posting "I love this President!" in a smattering of the ten thousand or so Bush-Bashing thread ssince November 2000 might have some humor to it (despite its not actually being funny). But doing it in every single Bush bashing thread, or alternatively, posting some crap about Syria being the next country to be invaded in every thread about Iraq is not humor; it's dopey and boring. I appreciate that diligence that goes into this sort of thing, but it's as tedious to read as it surely must be to type.
Disclaimer: I never found Andy Kaufman very funny, so it is entirely possible that it is "high art" of a kind that I don't get.
Part of what makes Paris such an annoyance to me, is not his political point of view -- I have often enjoyed dios's posts as I used to MidasMulligan's whom I haven't seen in along time. Paris isn't in their league, however. Mostly he parrots PNAC and Fox News talking points peppered with the New York Post epithets. It's pretty low-rent stuff. Worse than all that, he takes every opportunity to show his contempt for Metafilter while he obviously enjoys these silly little flare ups so much. It's disingenuous.
He obviously sees himself as some kind of maverick whose keeping the flame lit for some cause only he knows about.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:56 AM on December 27, 2005
Mmmmn, no. Posting "I love this President!" in a smattering of the ten thousand or so Bush-Bashing thread ssince November 2000 might have some humor to it (despite its not actually being funny). But doing it in every single Bush bashing thread, or alternatively, posting some crap about Syria being the next country to be invaded in every thread about Iraq is not humor; it's dopey and boring. I appreciate that diligence that goes into this sort of thing, but it's as tedious to read as it surely must be to type.
Disclaimer: I never found Andy Kaufman very funny, so it is entirely possible that it is "high art" of a kind that I don't get.
Part of what makes Paris such an annoyance to me, is not his political point of view -- I have often enjoyed dios's posts as I used to MidasMulligan's whom I haven't seen in along time. Paris isn't in their league, however. Mostly he parrots PNAC and Fox News talking points peppered with the New York Post epithets. It's pretty low-rent stuff. Worse than all that, he takes every opportunity to show his contempt for Metafilter while he obviously enjoys these silly little flare ups so much. It's disingenuous.
He obviously sees himself as some kind of maverick whose keeping the flame lit for some cause only he knows about.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:56 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus is Ed Koch.
I'm torn between applauding the brilliance of this observation, and being suspicious of any wisdom from "Tommy Gnosis."
kidding. sweetest username I've seen in a while
posted by scarabic at 8:23 AM on December 27, 2005
I'm torn between applauding the brilliance of this observation, and being suspicious of any wisdom from "Tommy Gnosis."
kidding. sweetest username I've seen in a while
posted by scarabic at 8:23 AM on December 27, 2005
Then please provide a clearer definition, delmoi.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:28 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:28 AM on December 27, 2005
I fear I have sullied my pristine reputation by leaping upon the manure pile shortly before it is set ablaze.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:30 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:30 AM on December 27, 2005
Well, I'm not delmoi, but since I agree with him I'll take a shot: Trolling is the practice of posting messages with the primary purpose of inciting conflict.
I think that's generally a definition that would be shared by a lot of people. (And yes, I do think Wikipedia is a pretty darn legitimate source for this kind of question.)
posted by lodurr at 8:34 AM on December 27, 2005
I think that's generally a definition that would be shared by a lot of people. (And yes, I do think Wikipedia is a pretty darn legitimate source for this kind of question.)
posted by lodurr at 8:34 AM on December 27, 2005
Paris trolls, sure. However, if you ignore his trolling he often will have something to say, but if you take the bait he will keep it going. The key is ignoring the little inflammatory comments he tosses out to get your goat. The best defense against teasing is to ignore the teaser, advice which he should take as well. I do think that Paris has trolled more and discussed less as of late, but give him a chance.
posted by caddis at 8:43 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by caddis at 8:43 AM on December 27, 2005
Can we get rid of the retarded boy who lives next door to me? He doesn't seem to be contributing much to the community.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:43 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Captaintripps at 8:43 AM on December 27, 2005
Lodurr: Man, that brings me back.
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor, rather than provocation...
Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on these earlier definitions, even after the term was applied more generally to inflammatory actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
I remember using "troll" that way. For example, the classic MeFi troll, if my lexicon worked the same way it did in the early 90's, wouldn't be "Lefties just can't admit that Bush is a great president", or even "Bush roxxors, yuo commies suck dick!", but "What does a single period mean by itself?".
I'd completely forgotten about that definition of troll. And I was an alt.folklore.urban reader to boot.
posted by Bugbread at 8:46 AM on December 27, 2005
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only a new user would respond to them earnestly. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor, rather than provocation...
Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on these earlier definitions, even after the term was applied more generally to inflammatory actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
I remember using "troll" that way. For example, the classic MeFi troll, if my lexicon worked the same way it did in the early 90's, wouldn't be "Lefties just can't admit that Bush is a great president", or even "Bush roxxors, yuo commies suck dick!", but "What does a single period mean by itself?".
I'd completely forgotten about that definition of troll. And I was an alt.folklore.urban reader to boot.
posted by Bugbread at 8:46 AM on December 27, 2005
Alas, captaintripps, no; he may be retarded, but he is also real. ParisParamus, by contrast, is just a bunch of bits in a database.
posted by lodurr at 8:47 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by lodurr at 8:47 AM on December 27, 2005
Actually, Ed Koch is pretty politically smart. But my heros are Hitchens and Mark Steyn.
"That's from Paris' first post in the thread, which had no other instances of "shit" or "fuck" before he showed up."
You are correct, and I apologize for that. It's not typical
of me (using vulgar language in any context is unnatural for me and requires a big effort). However, since that tread was little more than a continuation of the previous NSA/Surveillance thread, I didn't view it as a "the beginning of a thread."
And Baby_Balrog, thanks. Metafilter shouldn't just be a place to have your preconceived political beliefs confirmed. Or a place where one can blindly scream confirmation of those pre-conceived beliefs, but one needs to whisper disagreement in the most diplomatic, gentle of terms.
Remember: Only You Can Give Me More Attention Than I Deserve.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:53 AM on December 27, 2005
"That's from Paris' first post in the thread, which had no other instances of "shit" or "fuck" before he showed up."
You are correct, and I apologize for that. It's not typical
of me (using vulgar language in any context is unnatural for me and requires a big effort). However, since that tread was little more than a continuation of the previous NSA/Surveillance thread, I didn't view it as a "the beginning of a thread."
And Baby_Balrog, thanks. Metafilter shouldn't just be a place to have your preconceived political beliefs confirmed. Or a place where one can blindly scream confirmation of those pre-conceived beliefs, but one needs to whisper disagreement in the most diplomatic, gentle of terms.
Remember: Only You Can Give Me More Attention Than I Deserve.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:53 AM on December 27, 2005
PontifexPrimus has a pretty good suggestion, it's a shame it can't be posted at the top of MeFi to allow users to immediatly take advantage of these tools if they need to do so. On the other hand, it's kind of like creating 'your perfect world' where everyone agrees and no one complains. Still though, I'm going to give these a try and see how it plays out. Just tired of the PP/ThreadCrapper bot. . .
If you're using firefox as a browser (and there's no reason not to) you could install the Greasemonkey extension and the MeFi blacklist script, which creates a cancel button after every post that you can use to block out the comments of the poster. And while you were at it, you could also download the MeFi quote script, which allows for easy replies.
All for free. ;)
I've got a single user blacklisted. Guess who?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 10:48 PM PST on December 26 [!]
posted by mk1gti at 8:57 AM on December 27, 2005
Thanks for the blacklist suggestion -- PP is officially TUNED OUT, thank the gods....
posted by solipse at 9:01 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by solipse at 9:01 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus: Remember: Only You Can Give Me More Attention Than I Deserve.That made me smile. It's so true; and it's such a classic. Paris is just like those abusive spouses who misbehave and then blame it on their partners for putting up with them. "If you'd just throw me out, you wouldn't have to put up with my shit...."
posted by lodurr at 9:03 AM on December 27, 2005
mk1gti, you'll probably notice the quote script at work in this thread [g/].
The fun thing about Greasemonkey scripts is that you can easily hack them to change how they work. So you could probably mod the blacklist script to toggle to only including blacklisted posters. (Hmm....that might be an interesting experiment....)
posted by lodurr at 9:05 AM on December 27, 2005
The fun thing about Greasemonkey scripts is that you can easily hack them to change how they work. So you could probably mod the blacklist script to toggle to only including blacklisted posters. (Hmm....that might be an interesting experiment....)
posted by lodurr at 9:05 AM on December 27, 2005
Yeah, as soon as I can figure out to get these things configured I'm going to plug them in. If I can't sort it out I think I might post an AskMeFi
It's just a shame he can't have a simple discussion with people without derailing and distracting . . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:06 AM on December 27, 2005
It's just a shame he can't have a simple discussion with people without derailing and distracting . . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:06 AM on December 27, 2005
Yeah, sometimes I wonder about whether anyone's been checking out my replies, and now that I know about the scripts I realize 'only selectively'. . . (^_^)
posted by mk1gti at 9:11 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 9:11 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus has previously stated his explicit purpose in hanging around MeFi: to disrupt threads and raise shit.
That is sociopathic behaviour.
Fuck ParisParamus and fuck Matt for allowing it to continue.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:38 AM on December 27, 2005
That is sociopathic behaviour.
Fuck ParisParamus and fuck Matt for allowing it to continue.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:38 AM on December 27, 2005
That is sociopathic behaviour.
Don't cheapen the word. He may be a pain in the ass, but he's no sociopath. It's just a website.
posted by jonmc at 9:39 AM on December 27, 2005
Don't cheapen the word. He may be a pain in the ass, but he's no sociopath. It's just a website.
posted by jonmc at 9:39 AM on December 27, 2005
Well, before we cheapen the word, let's look at the definition.
posted by mk1gti at 9:44 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 9:44 AM on December 27, 2005
PP's posts only make sense if you realize he is furiously masturbating and typing one-handed.
posted by bardic at 9:53 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by bardic at 9:53 AM on December 27, 2005
The people who jump on PP and accuse him of derail and distraction are as responsible, or possibly more so, for that derail and distraction as he is.
If the definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with what might be perceived as a common liberal (as in left of moderate) notion in a sometimes dismissive and irritating manner then PP may fit the bill.
I often don't agree with PP but I find his detractors much more distracting.
posted by Carbolic at 9:55 AM on December 27, 2005
If the definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with what might be perceived as a common liberal (as in left of moderate) notion in a sometimes dismissive and irritating manner then PP may fit the bill.
I often don't agree with PP but I find his detractors much more distracting.
posted by Carbolic at 9:55 AM on December 27, 2005
Whenever I try to use that script, nothing happens, and the Javascript console shows an Error: meFiBl_Set is not defined...
posted by Bugbread at 9:58 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 9:58 AM on December 27, 2005
From the wiki article on trolling linked to above:
"Please do not feed the Troll:
Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the Troll" warning in a private message to the answerer."
I think this clarifies one of my earlier points.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:04 AM on December 27, 2005
"Please do not feed the Troll:
Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the Troll" warning in a private message to the answerer."
I think this clarifies one of my earlier points.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:04 AM on December 27, 2005
"Why do you want more regs for corps, but less regs for the most powerful; (and therefore most dangerous) man in the world?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:52 AM PST on December 27 [!]"
He's not that powerful; he's subject to plenty of "regulation"; he's abiding by the same rules as his predecessors, and he's out the door in January 2009. So, just calm down. And he's a pretty good leader.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 7:52 AM PST on December 27 [!]"
He's not that powerful; he's subject to plenty of "regulation"; he's abiding by the same rules as his predecessors, and he's out the door in January 2009. So, just calm down. And he's a pretty good leader.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
I find the thought that it's because of his politics entirely bizarre and Ethereal Blighish. Objections to PP largely have to do with his approach and tone, which displays a consistent lack of respect for civil discourse. As I said in the thread his argument basically is this:
"Left."
Bring up a point. It's not valid because guess what, it's from the "left."
Not at all convincing. Whether this counts as trolling is of course debatable. I don't see how, however, it offers an opposing point-of-view that can be discussed.
He also frequently dismisses points by calling them European. I suppose senseless, insulting, playground level name calling for arguments doesn't warrant a call out or frustration. We're all being unfair aren't we.
I'll repeat myself. PP is officially not a troll. He just presents a different view point. It's not from the left, right, or central, which is obviously so close to meaningless anyway, though he likes to reduce many arguments to this dynamic.
His viewpoint is usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. The very leftist nonsense he supposedly despises and dismisses, that of tolerance, keeps him around and indeed, helps him to thrive. That he bites the hand that feeds him is clear.
MeFi is the stage he performs on. Any sort of community standards rarely apply. Though I imagine he's been given a time out or two. You can't get banned for failing to engage in honest debate 90% of the time. That others try to engage him in honest debate is admirable, but ultimately, futile.
posted by juiceCake at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
"Left."
Bring up a point. It's not valid because guess what, it's from the "left."
Not at all convincing. Whether this counts as trolling is of course debatable. I don't see how, however, it offers an opposing point-of-view that can be discussed.
He also frequently dismisses points by calling them European. I suppose senseless, insulting, playground level name calling for arguments doesn't warrant a call out or frustration. We're all being unfair aren't we.
I'll repeat myself. PP is officially not a troll. He just presents a different view point. It's not from the left, right, or central, which is obviously so close to meaningless anyway, though he likes to reduce many arguments to this dynamic.
His viewpoint is usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. The very leftist nonsense he supposedly despises and dismisses, that of tolerance, keeps him around and indeed, helps him to thrive. That he bites the hand that feeds him is clear.
MeFi is the stage he performs on. Any sort of community standards rarely apply. Though I imagine he's been given a time out or two. You can't get banned for failing to engage in honest debate 90% of the time. That others try to engage him in honest debate is admirable, but ultimately, futile.
posted by juiceCake at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
The troll, the troll the troll. Would you all please grow up!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on December 27, 2005
Yeth. Thith definithly thasthes like footh.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:25 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:25 AM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus: The troll, the troll the troll. Would you all please grow up!You never disappoint me, PP.
posted by lodurr at 10:41 AM on December 27, 2005
Re. sociopathy: My Psych 111 prof (intro) took a little time in one of the first classes to very carefully explain that the fact that you met all the paper criteria for a diagnosis didn't mean it was applicable. Layfolk often fail to understand the severity that's implied by terms like "significant impact on social function."
So, yeah, let's not cheapen the word. Lest it go the way of "fascist."
posted by lodurr at 10:54 AM on December 27, 2005
So, yeah, let's not cheapen the word. Lest it go the way of "fascist."
posted by lodurr at 10:54 AM on December 27, 2005
Lodur: it's a question of nuance and context....NUANCE AND CONTEXT! ;- )
posted by ParisParamus at 10:56 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 10:56 AM on December 27, 2005
You're cookin', now, slidin' into your groove. I can feel it.
posted by lodurr at 10:57 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by lodurr at 10:57 AM on December 27, 2005
It's fascinating that Matt seems to prefer an endless stream of PP-related MeTa-threads to open his mouth and settle it - one way or the other.
posted by mr.marx at 11:36 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by mr.marx at 11:36 AM on December 27, 2005
But my heros are Hitchens and Mark Steyn.
"Wingnut All-Star: Mark Steyn"
posted by ericb at 11:40 AM on December 27, 2005
"Wingnut All-Star: Mark Steyn"
posted by ericb at 11:40 AM on December 27, 2005
Mr. marx: Settling the issue would have consequences. I'm not sure that Matt is quite ready for that new direction.
posted by lodurr at 11:42 AM on December 27, 2005
posted by lodurr at 11:42 AM on December 27, 2005
unfortunately, I think paris is reaping what he sowed as the paris of yesteryear. Frankly, I think this reaction to him is overblown and unnecessary, but completely understandable, because people DO respond to who is speaking, not just what is being said. in the minds of a lot of people paris is no different than he way, say, a year ago, and so they respond to the paris they remember. I happen to think that paris, with exceptions, has largely stuck to his promise to be nicer when he discusses stuff around here. but even if he was nothing but sugar and light around here, people would still respond to him this way because he's built up a reputation that speaks for him, and not necessarily very well.
my recommendation would be to just make a new screen name and start fresh. paris_paramus, as a mefi identity, is virtually synonymous with "trouble making" around here.
posted by shmegegge at 11:45 AM on December 27, 2005
my recommendation would be to just make a new screen name and start fresh. paris_paramus, as a mefi identity, is virtually synonymous with "trouble making" around here.
posted by shmegegge at 11:45 AM on December 27, 2005
He's not that powerful;
- only true if you see him as a figure head. False, if you think he & his ideas took us to war, authorised internal spying
he's subject to plenty of "regulation";
- ineffective, if he claims that he can avoid regs (like the FISA court) due to the inherent powers of the Presidency and the assent of congress
he's abiding by the same rules as his predecessors,
- clearly, he isn't (see FISA, again)
and he's out the door in January 2009.
- And you would be happy for any other President of any political stripe to keep assuming powers like he has?
Do me a favour: prove that you can cite reasonably authoritative backups to your assertions (the ones which aren't opinion: we all get a free pass on them). Not just here and now, but as good practice.
One of the reasons that people take against you, Paris, is because you are opinionated, and don't distinguish between your opinion, perception, and known facts. It is common practice for Mefites to cite other sources: can you do some more of this?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:48 AM on December 27, 2005
- only true if you see him as a figure head. False, if you think he & his ideas took us to war, authorised internal spying
he's subject to plenty of "regulation";
- ineffective, if he claims that he can avoid regs (like the FISA court) due to the inherent powers of the Presidency and the assent of congress
he's abiding by the same rules as his predecessors,
- clearly, he isn't (see FISA, again)
and he's out the door in January 2009.
- And you would be happy for any other President of any political stripe to keep assuming powers like he has?
Do me a favour: prove that you can cite reasonably authoritative backups to your assertions (the ones which aren't opinion: we all get a free pass on them). Not just here and now, but as good practice.
One of the reasons that people take against you, Paris, is because you are opinionated, and don't distinguish between your opinion, perception, and known facts. It is common practice for Mefites to cite other sources: can you do some more of this?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:48 AM on December 27, 2005
PP is too artless to be a troll. He is pure flamebait. I find the stiffness of his comments comical. There was a time there where everyone was ignoring his comments and the stark contrast of his childishly parroted talking-point posts was quite funny.
Noting the users who flame him is a handy way to weed out people whose opinions can be safely ignored. PP is like a little lightning rod for wackos.
posted by Mr T at 11:56 AM on December 27, 2005
Noting the users who flame him is a handy way to weed out people whose opinions can be safely ignored. PP is like a little lightning rod for wackos.
posted by Mr T at 11:56 AM on December 27, 2005
"One of the reasons that people take against you, Paris, is because you are opinionated, and don't distinguish between your opinion, perception, and known facts."
An opinion is something you hold to be true. I don't believe people should be asked to cheapen their beliefs by differentiating them from known facts.
Please do not quote the previous sentence without noting the context provided below.
dash_slot - I agree with you completely - when people assert certain statements to be "true" - not "opinions" - it behooves them to substantiate some evidence.
But I think there is way too much literary pussy-footing around here, and I appreciate posters who come out in the open and state their beliefs without first apologizing for believing them.
For example:
I much prefer, "John Kerry is a weaselly fop," to "I think John Kerry is a weaselly fop, but I haven't any evidence to back it up so it's really just my opinion." Yuck.
However, it is important to note that in statements such as, "Within the last 10 years, the United States has deported nearly twice as many Arab Americans as any other ethnicity," most definitely require a legitimate source linked within the comment.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:18 PM on December 27, 2005
An opinion is something you hold to be true. I don't believe people should be asked to cheapen their beliefs by differentiating them from known facts.
Please do not quote the previous sentence without noting the context provided below.
dash_slot - I agree with you completely - when people assert certain statements to be "true" - not "opinions" - it behooves them to substantiate some evidence.
But I think there is way too much literary pussy-footing around here, and I appreciate posters who come out in the open and state their beliefs without first apologizing for believing them.
For example:
I much prefer, "John Kerry is a weaselly fop," to "I think John Kerry is a weaselly fop, but I haven't any evidence to back it up so it's really just my opinion." Yuck.
However, it is important to note that in statements such as, "Within the last 10 years, the United States has deported nearly twice as many Arab Americans as any other ethnicity," most definitely require a legitimate source linked within the comment.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:18 PM on December 27, 2005
His viewpoint is usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing.
This is true of a lot of posters. The only difference between ParisParamus and them is that their opinions tend to coincide with the majority opinions of MetaFilter. You might say you are singling out ParisParamus because he is an asshat, but there are a lot of asshats, therefore you are actually singling him out because he is an asshat who disagrees with you. Calling people names because they disagree with you also makes you an asshat.
posted by fred_ashmore at 12:21 PM on December 27, 2005
This is true of a lot of posters. The only difference between ParisParamus and them is that their opinions tend to coincide with the majority opinions of MetaFilter. You might say you are singling out ParisParamus because he is an asshat, but there are a lot of asshats, therefore you are actually singling him out because he is an asshat who disagrees with you. Calling people names because they disagree with you also makes you an asshat.
posted by fred_ashmore at 12:21 PM on December 27, 2005
Eventually, immature leftish posters will realize that a sense of humor they can't grasp, and posting a link to respected journal that contradicts their paranoia, is not trolling.
But you don't do any of that.
All you do is troll.
posted by wakko at 1:19 PM on December 27, 2005
But you don't do any of that.
All you do is troll.
posted by wakko at 1:19 PM on December 27, 2005
I don't believe people should be asked to cheapen their beliefs by differentiating them from known facts.
Cheapen? I will always value more highly an opinion which includes the rationale that led the poster to that point. Logical opinion, suffused with facts and information underpinning the assertions of opinion - that's not cheapening - to the contrary, it's burnishing, embedding and enriching. I actually don't get what you mean there!
posted by dash_slot- at 2:07 PM on December 27, 2005
Cheapen? I will always value more highly an opinion which includes the rationale that led the poster to that point. Logical opinion, suffused with facts and information underpinning the assertions of opinion - that's not cheapening - to the contrary, it's burnishing, embedding and enriching. I actually don't get what you mean there!
posted by dash_slot- at 2:07 PM on December 27, 2005
no u
posted by fred_ashmore at 2:08 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by fred_ashmore at 2:08 PM on December 27, 2005
"But you don't do any of that."
I'm sorry if making points linking to The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Mark Steyn, The New York Post, Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Times, The New York Sun, and Little Green Footballs (that outed Dan Rather), and a number of other provocative publications doesn't meet your standards, but it meets mine, and these are respected publications and blogs.
And if you haven't noticed at all that I like to these sources, you just prove my point.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:00 PM on December 27, 2005
I'm sorry if making points linking to The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Mark Steyn, The New York Post, Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Times, The New York Sun, and Little Green Footballs (that outed Dan Rather), and a number of other provocative publications doesn't meet your standards, but it meets mine, and these are respected publications and blogs.
And if you haven't noticed at all that I like to these sources, you just prove my point.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:00 PM on December 27, 2005
Oh, I guess you're a troll unless you respect Daily Kos and the NYT. Excuuuuuuuuse me!
posted by ParisParamus at 3:03 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 3:03 PM on December 27, 2005
wakko : "Yes, and you always back up all your assertions."
Can you back up that assertion, wakko?
posted by Bugbread at 3:33 PM on December 27, 2005
Can you back up that assertion, wakko?
posted by Bugbread at 3:33 PM on December 27, 2005
Moreover, one's opinion need not always be based on facts. "I like President Bush, he seems to have good instincts" is a purely subjective, yet vaid judgment on my part. That's done lots on Mefi (on one form or another), but people are only called out when they're opinion isn't part of the Left-of-Center herd.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:41 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 3:41 PM on December 27, 2005
ParisParamus : "people are only called out when they're opinion isn't part of the Left-of-Center herd."
Not in my experience. I would agree that it's statistically more likely, but I remember a few lefty folks being called out for incessant Marxist drivel and the like. It's just rarer.
posted by Bugbread at 3:50 PM on December 27, 2005
Not in my experience. I would agree that it's statistically more likely, but I remember a few lefty folks being called out for incessant Marxist drivel and the like. It's just rarer.
posted by Bugbread at 3:50 PM on December 27, 2005
bugbread, you may be correct as long as "statistically more likely" /= single percentage points of difference. I invite you, or anyone to parade Left-of-Center comments that are assaulted by someone other than myself, and the few other non-Lefties of Metafilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:20 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 4:20 PM on December 27, 2005
PP,
On a comment by comment basis, you're totally right. Way more rightie comments get called out than leftie.
On a user basis, you're right, but not as right. I can remember maybe 4 people getting called out for what comes out to be "being righties" (but usually phrased as "being trolls"): You, dios, paleocon, and dhoyt. I can remember 1 person being called out for what comes out to be "being a leftie" (phrased as "being tedious"): cleardawn. So that's a 25% difference, ≠single percentage points. If my number of righties was off by twice as much, we're still talking 12.5%, which is still ≠single percentage points.
But when it comes to repeated callouts (ie not counting the number of users called out, but the number of callouts of said users), then, yeah, we're talking single percentage points.
posted by Bugbread at 4:27 PM on December 27, 2005
On a comment by comment basis, you're totally right. Way more rightie comments get called out than leftie.
On a user basis, you're right, but not as right. I can remember maybe 4 people getting called out for what comes out to be "being righties" (but usually phrased as "being trolls"): You, dios, paleocon, and dhoyt. I can remember 1 person being called out for what comes out to be "being a leftie" (phrased as "being tedious"): cleardawn. So that's a 25% difference, ≠single percentage points. If my number of righties was off by twice as much, we're still talking 12.5%, which is still ≠single percentage points.
But when it comes to repeated callouts (ie not counting the number of users called out, but the number of callouts of said users), then, yeah, we're talking single percentage points.
posted by Bugbread at 4:27 PM on December 27, 2005
By the way, if you analyze my apolitical comments, you'll see the same style; a control that corroborates my non-troll status.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:04 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 5:04 PM on December 27, 2005
When called on his abuse earlier in this thread, PP said:
...that tread was little more than a continuation of the previous NSA/Surveillance thread, I didn't view it as a "the beginning of a thread."
Incompetency, deceit or disingenuousness?
Well, he also apologised in that comment, for which - kudos. I suspect that PP deceives himself as much as other Mefites. He says that his abuse, his unsupported assertions and his post-and-run style is exceptional, allowable 'cos he's in a minority here. He doesn't respond to the most powerful criticisms, because he has no answer.
As to PP's opinions - all are fine, that aren't abusive. I trust that he can learn to distinguish between that, and facts. And that he'll reply in appropriate tone when called out on his claims. His charges of intimidation gave me a hollow laugh.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:27 PM on December 27, 2005
...that tread was little more than a continuation of the previous NSA/Surveillance thread, I didn't view it as a "the beginning of a thread."
Incompetency, deceit or disingenuousness?
Well, he also apologised in that comment, for which - kudos. I suspect that PP deceives himself as much as other Mefites. He says that his abuse, his unsupported assertions and his post-and-run style is exceptional, allowable 'cos he's in a minority here. He doesn't respond to the most powerful criticisms, because he has no answer.
As to PP's opinions - all are fine, that aren't abusive. I trust that he can learn to distinguish between that, and facts. And that he'll reply in appropriate tone when called out on his claims. His charges of intimidation gave me a hollow laugh.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:27 PM on December 27, 2005
Paris is a classic Usenet-style crashing bore; the MeFi equivalent of the nutjob who posts benign articles to rec.fishing and comp.sys.mac, while ranting away interminably about his perpetual motion machine in sci.physics. Eventually, most people realize that there's something deeply pathetic about anyone who devotes literally years to being such an obsessively devoted idiot in one context, regardless of their other apparently normal interests.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:31 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:31 PM on December 27, 2005
"I'd completely forgotten about that definition of troll. And I was an alt.folklore.urban reader to boot."
Really? I was a regular in a.f.u. in the mid-90s and that defintion of troll remains, to me, as the primary definition. Partly because it makes it so much more interesting. Troll == asshole is just boring.
"I find the thought that it's because of his politics entirely bizarre and Ethereal Blighish."
Excuse me?? What do you mean by that?
As to this specific subject, I think that there's difference of opinion because there's an implicit disagreement about whether we should look at this objectively or subjectively. If you try to be objective, PP's and other righties' comments are no more provoctative than the vast majority of the more politically engaged lefties here. On the other hand, if you look at this subjectively, then you really can't evaluate provocativity outside the context of the community in which the provocation was uttered. And by that standard, of course PP is much more provocative.
And that's not meaningless because part of what we're referring to as a "troll" is someone who is intentionally provocative. In the context, being loudly contrary to majority opinion in some given forum is being provocative.
I object to people that are outraged by things dios or PP or others say as if those statements are necessarily and obviously outrageous outside the context of mefi. That kind of narrow-mindedness bothers me because it's typical of the outraged self-righteous of all political stripes who tend to make the world hellish.
I've said this many times, but I think the simple fact that someone will be loudly contrary to the majority is itself suspicious, even though there's implications of that idea that are disturbing. Why is someone like PP here? I know dios well enough to be, say, 80% satisfied that he's here for honest reasons, and not to be deliberately provocative. Frankly, I'm not nearly that certain about PP.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:14 PM on December 27, 2005
Really? I was a regular in a.f.u. in the mid-90s and that defintion of troll remains, to me, as the primary definition. Partly because it makes it so much more interesting. Troll == asshole is just boring.
"I find the thought that it's because of his politics entirely bizarre and Ethereal Blighish."
Excuse me?? What do you mean by that?
As to this specific subject, I think that there's difference of opinion because there's an implicit disagreement about whether we should look at this objectively or subjectively. If you try to be objective, PP's and other righties' comments are no more provoctative than the vast majority of the more politically engaged lefties here. On the other hand, if you look at this subjectively, then you really can't evaluate provocativity outside the context of the community in which the provocation was uttered. And by that standard, of course PP is much more provocative.
And that's not meaningless because part of what we're referring to as a "troll" is someone who is intentionally provocative. In the context, being loudly contrary to majority opinion in some given forum is being provocative.
I object to people that are outraged by things dios or PP or others say as if those statements are necessarily and obviously outrageous outside the context of mefi. That kind of narrow-mindedness bothers me because it's typical of the outraged self-righteous of all political stripes who tend to make the world hellish.
I've said this many times, but I think the simple fact that someone will be loudly contrary to the majority is itself suspicious, even though there's implications of that idea that are disturbing. Why is someone like PP here? I know dios well enough to be, say, 80% satisfied that he's here for honest reasons, and not to be deliberately provocative. Frankly, I'm not nearly that certain about PP.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:14 PM on December 27, 2005
A ++++++! Would Read Thread Again!
posted by exlotuseater at 6:18 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by exlotuseater at 6:18 PM on December 27, 2005
I think paris is reaping what he sowed as the paris of yesteryear
Ah, yes, the good old Paris of yesteryear: continually trolling any Israel/Palestine threads, trying to convince us all that Palestinians are sub-human and thus worthy of extermination.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on December 27, 2005
Ah, yes, the good old Paris of yesteryear: continually trolling any Israel/Palestine threads, trying to convince us all that Palestinians are sub-human and thus worthy of extermination.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on December 27, 2005
Never said such a thing. I did call for Arafat's death by cell phone bomb, but that's hardly that outrageous. FIND ME SUCH A QUOTE. I DARE YOU!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 PM on December 27, 2005
I'm sorry if making points linking to The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, Mark Steyn, The New York Post, Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Times, The New York Sun, and Little Green Footballs (that outed Dan Rather), and a number of other provocative publications doesn't meet your standards, but it meets mine, and these are respected publications and blogs.
----------------------------------------------
Firstly PP, as much as you would like to think so, none of those sources are respected by anyone of any integrity in the world of professional journalism. And I don't mean 'follows the lefty liberal sphere', but just provable facts in general.
Perhaps you could pick up some books on propaganda and manipulation of news media to understand my point. The sources you cite are only designed to inflame, not educate.
Start with Machiavelli and move forward in time through to people like Upton Sinclair and 'The Jungle' and Che Guevera and 'Guerilla Warfare'. There's a reason the CIA adopted that as their playbook. Learn to differentiate between propaganda and real, verifiable facts. I think if you do that you're in for a wondrous and life-changing experience. Dare to be different. Dare to learn the truth as it is and not as you misperceive it.
posted by mk1gti at 8:05 PM on December 27, 2005
----------------------------------------------
Firstly PP, as much as you would like to think so, none of those sources are respected by anyone of any integrity in the world of professional journalism. And I don't mean 'follows the lefty liberal sphere', but just provable facts in general.
Perhaps you could pick up some books on propaganda and manipulation of news media to understand my point. The sources you cite are only designed to inflame, not educate.
Start with Machiavelli and move forward in time through to people like Upton Sinclair and 'The Jungle' and Che Guevera and 'Guerilla Warfare'. There's a reason the CIA adopted that as their playbook. Learn to differentiate between propaganda and real, verifiable facts. I think if you do that you're in for a wondrous and life-changing experience. Dare to be different. Dare to learn the truth as it is and not as you misperceive it.
posted by mk1gti at 8:05 PM on December 27, 2005
Sorry, mk1gti. First, those are perfectly legit sources and people, except, perhaps in your little bubble. Second, Metafilter is not an academic institution-- what, were you rejected by one, and this is your smaller pond? Grow up and lighten up.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:13 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:13 PM on December 27, 2005
Just making a suggestion PP, and no, you're wrong and will remain wrong. It simply is so. Sorry. Oh and change your diaper, it's drooping. . .
posted by mk1gti at 8:37 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 8:37 PM on December 27, 2005
I think paris is reaping what he sowed as the paris of yesteryear
Sheeeit. He's reaping what he sowed with his first post in the damn thread. No need to go any farther back than that.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 PM on December 27, 2005
Sheeeit. He's reaping what he sowed with his first post in the damn thread. No need to go any farther back than that.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 PM on December 27, 2005
Being wrong is not a sin. Assuming I'm wrong...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:39 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:39 PM on December 27, 2005
This is true of a lot of posters. The only difference between ParisParamus and them is that their opinions tend to coincide with the majority opinions of MetaFilter.
Sorry mate, not in my case, and I suspect, many others. Majority opinions? Such as? I didn't realize this was OpinionFilter and that wishing to have a civil disucussion is beyond the reach of this forum. Thanks for setting me straight.
To me he's a performer. A sort of g.g. alin if you will.
Opinions of any sort, are, for the most part, respected here, and when they're not, people are called out for it, regardless of this left/right dynamic, which is utterly simplistic anyway.
Refusal to engage in civil discussion above a playground level, for most of the time, but rather dismissively insult most users isn't an opinion, it's deplorable.
I suppose what's really being said that you can call people leftists (which is an insult to him), you can call people Europeans (also an insult), and you can ignore naked evidence, and paint most of the other MetaFilter users as groupthinkers if they ask you to back up a statement (not an opinion) is perfectly fine because hey, it's just an opinion.
Fine. I think that the majority of his posts are usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. It's my opinion. You're just arguing against it because you disagree with me. If you didn't, you wouldn't.
How productive.
Here's an opinion. The Earth is flat and, in Paris style, anyone who believes the Earth is spherical has swallowed the usual leftist drivel that masquerades as 'fact' here. If anyone can prove to me that the Earth is not flat, I'll retract my statement and my membership from the Flat Earth society, if there is one.
Earth is proven to be spherical.
Oh, I was talking about the Moon.
Yay!
posted by juiceCake at 9:10 PM on December 27, 2005
Sorry mate, not in my case, and I suspect, many others. Majority opinions? Such as? I didn't realize this was OpinionFilter and that wishing to have a civil disucussion is beyond the reach of this forum. Thanks for setting me straight.
To me he's a performer. A sort of g.g. alin if you will.
Opinions of any sort, are, for the most part, respected here, and when they're not, people are called out for it, regardless of this left/right dynamic, which is utterly simplistic anyway.
Refusal to engage in civil discussion above a playground level, for most of the time, but rather dismissively insult most users isn't an opinion, it's deplorable.
I suppose what's really being said that you can call people leftists (which is an insult to him), you can call people Europeans (also an insult), and you can ignore naked evidence, and paint most of the other MetaFilter users as groupthinkers if they ask you to back up a statement (not an opinion) is perfectly fine because hey, it's just an opinion.
Fine. I think that the majority of his posts are usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. It's my opinion. You're just arguing against it because you disagree with me. If you didn't, you wouldn't.
How productive.
Here's an opinion. The Earth is flat and, in Paris style, anyone who believes the Earth is spherical has swallowed the usual leftist drivel that masquerades as 'fact' here. If anyone can prove to me that the Earth is not flat, I'll retract my statement and my membership from the Flat Earth society, if there is one.
Earth is proven to be spherical.
Oh, I was talking about the Moon.
Yay!
posted by juiceCake at 9:10 PM on December 27, 2005
Listen, I'm as capable, actually, more capable of civil discussion as the next poster. But the political discussions are often far from civil here. They're histrionic screeds in which President Bush is the Orwellian, Fascist Anti-Christ Hitler, or wherein madmen or jokers such as Michael Moore and Sheehan are taken seriously. And so, my comments are commensurate.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:33 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:33 PM on December 27, 2005
I think PP has gone group. Maybe modeled on some recent PG experiments. And he/they are getting a bit bold.
posted by Mr T at 9:37 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by Mr T at 9:37 PM on December 27, 2005
Yeh maybe. Fella certainly's got a shitload more Metafilter time lately. Be easy enough writing for a group to pull, that's for sure.
posted by furiousthought at 9:45 PM on December 27, 2005
posted by furiousthought at 9:45 PM on December 27, 2005
Threads like this do more harm than good. You are simply showing someone (be it PP or someone else, identity is not the point) that if they yell loud enough, you pay attention to them, thus justifying the entire point they made such statements in the first place.
But I do think PP is given the Troll Crown more than others due to his relatively unpopular viewpoints. If the same measurement was applied to others, we would have others that are commonly viewed as trolls. FFF for example.
posted by Dagobert at 9:57 PM on December 27, 2005
But I do think PP is given the Troll Crown more than others due to his relatively unpopular viewpoints. If the same measurement was applied to others, we would have others that are commonly viewed as trolls. FFF for example.
posted by Dagobert at 9:57 PM on December 27, 2005
They're histrionic screeds
"Yeah! So I'll feel free to jump right in with a histrionic screed of my own to start things off! Sure, why not? Fuck my past promise to help elevate the discourse at MeFi! My word isn't worth shit! Yeah!"
That *is* how we're supposed to read you now, right, Paris?
posted by mediareport at 9:59 PM on December 27, 2005
"Yeah! So I'll feel free to jump right in with a histrionic screed of my own to start things off! Sure, why not? Fuck my past promise to help elevate the discourse at MeFi! My word isn't worth shit! Yeah!"
That *is* how we're supposed to read you now, right, Paris?
posted by mediareport at 9:59 PM on December 27, 2005
They're histrionic screeds in which President Bush is the Orwellian, Fascist Anti-Christ Hitler, or wherein madmen or jokers such as Michael Moore and Sheehan are taken seriously. And so, my comments are commensurate.
This comment doesn't even support itself.
It doesn't matter what you think the threads are. Histrionic screeds? tough titty. flag it or call it out here. Anti-bush? Fucking deal. People hate him. There are reasons for it. Largely because he's the worst president in the history of this country.
When people call you out for speaking your mind in something less than pc terms, I tend to side with your right to speak that way. this thread is an excellent example.
So in other words, this has been going on for decades, but because the NYT is liberal shit, and George Bush is President, it sees fit to create a news story...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:07 PM EST on December 26 [!]
that comment isn't troll bait, nor is it vile and inflammatory. If the same had been said about Fox News, no one would have started a meta callout. There are folks who hate all kinds of agression or abrasive behavior on the site, and I (for one) tend to hate that viewpoint. If you think a person is a lying douchebag, say it. This isn't the fucking house of congress, and you can speak here as people speak in the real world. But there are people who are going to attack you and call you out for being frank and abrasive every time you do it. Fuck 'em.
But deciding that a thread isn't worth respectful discussion just because it happens to be written in praise of someone you disagree with (like Michael Moore)? Bullshit. You want to talk about the issues in a gruff tone of voice, or curse about liberals (while talking about the issues) then fine. You want to just be insulting to an entire side of a discussion just because you hate a movie maker (for god knows what reason), then you can shove it up your ass. Posts that violate the guidelines don't really deserve respectful treatment, but everything else does, whether you agree with it or not.
posted by shmegegge at 11:39 PM on December 27, 2005
This comment doesn't even support itself.
It doesn't matter what you think the threads are. Histrionic screeds? tough titty. flag it or call it out here. Anti-bush? Fucking deal. People hate him. There are reasons for it. Largely because he's the worst president in the history of this country.
When people call you out for speaking your mind in something less than pc terms, I tend to side with your right to speak that way. this thread is an excellent example.
So in other words, this has been going on for decades, but because the NYT is liberal shit, and George Bush is President, it sees fit to create a news story...
posted by ParisParamus at 5:07 PM EST on December 26 [!]
that comment isn't troll bait, nor is it vile and inflammatory. If the same had been said about Fox News, no one would have started a meta callout. There are folks who hate all kinds of agression or abrasive behavior on the site, and I (for one) tend to hate that viewpoint. If you think a person is a lying douchebag, say it. This isn't the fucking house of congress, and you can speak here as people speak in the real world. But there are people who are going to attack you and call you out for being frank and abrasive every time you do it. Fuck 'em.
But deciding that a thread isn't worth respectful discussion just because it happens to be written in praise of someone you disagree with (like Michael Moore)? Bullshit. You want to talk about the issues in a gruff tone of voice, or curse about liberals (while talking about the issues) then fine. You want to just be insulting to an entire side of a discussion just because you hate a movie maker (for god knows what reason), then you can shove it up your ass. Posts that violate the guidelines don't really deserve respectful treatment, but everything else does, whether you agree with it or not.
posted by shmegegge at 11:39 PM on December 27, 2005
shmegegge, even a cursory review of my "contributions" will show that my MO is to COMBINE attention-getting rhetoric (respoonding in kind to the ambient noise) WITH a valid point, and often (although not always), a link to support my position.
So while I don't fault you for thinking I do what you describe above--the lie repeated over and over again--It's only half the story.
And, quite seriously, thank you for defending me (overall).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 AM on December 28, 2005
So while I don't fault you for thinking I do what you describe above--the lie repeated over and over again--It's only half the story.
And, quite seriously, thank you for defending me (overall).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 AM on December 28, 2005
ParisParamus: And, quite seriously, thank you for defending me (overall).Interesting take on that post.
posted by lodurr at 5:33 AM on December 28, 2005
I think nofundy is 100x more trollish than I have ever been. Yet no one calls him on it (despite being "awarded" a time-out--at least one) because he's part of the ideological herd.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:56 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 5:56 AM on December 28, 2005
Being '"awarded' a time-out" is the same as "no one calls him on it"? Interesting.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:07 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:07 AM on December 28, 2005
that comment isn't troll bait, nor is it...inflammatory
Jumping into a thread calling the NYT "liberal shit" isn't an inflammatory way to begin participating in a debate? Hoookay, shmegegge.
Look, no one's claiming this is Congress, but Paris isn't a fool; he knows exactly what he's doing with an initial comment like that. He's flinging poo at everyone. We can debate whether his frustration is justified or not, but that's beside the point. He acted like a child - again - and is refusing to take responsibility for his behavior, while continuing to whine about how unfair everyone is to him. Cry me a fucking river.
posted by mediareport at 6:07 AM on December 28, 2005
Jumping into a thread calling the NYT "liberal shit" isn't an inflammatory way to begin participating in a debate? Hoookay, shmegegge.
Look, no one's claiming this is Congress, but Paris isn't a fool; he knows exactly what he's doing with an initial comment like that. He's flinging poo at everyone. We can debate whether his frustration is justified or not, but that's beside the point. He acted like a child - again - and is refusing to take responsibility for his behavior, while continuing to whine about how unfair everyone is to him. Cry me a fucking river.
posted by mediareport at 6:07 AM on December 28, 2005
Paris is an intriguing combination of self-awareness and self-delusion. Witness the fact that he thinks schmegege is defending him for the latter; witness his sly comments up-thread and his occasional admissions that what he's up to is flat trolling. I think "childish" (or "child-like", if you prefer) is a good epithet: He displays the moral/ethical reasoning of an adolescent, able to justify his own actions with great facility, and yet ready willing and able to apply a forceful standard for logical consistency to everyone else.
Put this in human terms: He's like the teenager who looks for all his parents' little mis-steps, and uses them as an excuse to behave badly toward them on the grounds that they asked for it.
Part of that kind of behavior is a craving for attention in the form of discipline. He'd probably love to get the time-out, as a form of "attention" from Matt.
posted by lodurr at 7:15 AM on December 28, 2005
Put this in human terms: He's like the teenager who looks for all his parents' little mis-steps, and uses them as an excuse to behave badly toward them on the grounds that they asked for it.
Part of that kind of behavior is a craving for attention in the form of discipline. He'd probably love to get the time-out, as a form of "attention" from Matt.
posted by lodurr at 7:15 AM on December 28, 2005
"Jumping into a thread calling the NYT 'liberal shit' isn't an inflammatory way to begin participating in a debate? Hoookay, shmegegge."
But people have said essentially the same thing, only that NYT is a right-wing tool, lots of times and no one thinks that's an inflammatory way to begin participating in a debate.
I really think I was onto something in last night's comment. We need to decide on the criteria on which we're determining someone is a "troll", particulary if we're defining "inflammatory" against, say, a US median of political opinion, or against a MeFi median of opinion. People implicitly (I think, maybe I'm wrong) do the former in these sorts of MeTa threads all the time and the quote above is an example. But I think that even if we're implicitly making the context a community larger than MetaFilter, in actual practice we judging a poster more by our own local standards of opinion than we are by those of a larger community.
And in thinking about this last night, I decided that looking at the the more local criteria is a valid and reasonable thing, even if it doesn't seem completely fair because a) we modulate our behavior to the local community all the time in our daily lives; and, b) the local standard is far more "tangible" and available than the more distant "national standard" or, worse, some truly supposedly objective standard. But to the degree to which we are weighing things against our own majority opinion here on MeFi, we should be honest and up-front about it. mk1gti comments are exactly the sort of externalizing one's own personal standards onto the whole of reality that both people on the left and right do, and what people here often do. I really just wish people wouldn't so confidently assert as a universal truth things that are manifestly contestable. We all have a tendency to do this, but judging what's "fair" while doing so is a perversion of the term "fair".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:24 AM on December 28, 2005
But people have said essentially the same thing, only that NYT is a right-wing tool, lots of times and no one thinks that's an inflammatory way to begin participating in a debate.
I really think I was onto something in last night's comment. We need to decide on the criteria on which we're determining someone is a "troll", particulary if we're defining "inflammatory" against, say, a US median of political opinion, or against a MeFi median of opinion. People implicitly (I think, maybe I'm wrong) do the former in these sorts of MeTa threads all the time and the quote above is an example. But I think that even if we're implicitly making the context a community larger than MetaFilter, in actual practice we judging a poster more by our own local standards of opinion than we are by those of a larger community.
And in thinking about this last night, I decided that looking at the the more local criteria is a valid and reasonable thing, even if it doesn't seem completely fair because a) we modulate our behavior to the local community all the time in our daily lives; and, b) the local standard is far more "tangible" and available than the more distant "national standard" or, worse, some truly supposedly objective standard. But to the degree to which we are weighing things against our own majority opinion here on MeFi, we should be honest and up-front about it. mk1gti comments are exactly the sort of externalizing one's own personal standards onto the whole of reality that both people on the left and right do, and what people here often do. I really just wish people wouldn't so confidently assert as a universal truth things that are manifestly contestable. We all have a tendency to do this, but judging what's "fair" while doing so is a perversion of the term "fair".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:24 AM on December 28, 2005
Yeh, but where does that leave us? I haven't really touched presctiption in this thread, so I'm not expecting you to either, but: Do you have one? What you're offering is soul-searching; probably that's not too useful for people who want that objective standard.
BTW, I agree with you about that: It's not really tenable to reach for an objective standard. And it's also important (this is one thing I read you as saying) to distinguish between people and the roles they play: dios sometimes trolls (sure he does), but he is not a troll. His opinions are often offensive to many sensibilities, but I've come to believe (after some soul-searching) that he really is trying more to be a devil's advocate than a troll. Especially when he gets onto those legalistic/logicalistic kicks.
Paris is more purely oppositional. Using dios as a counter-example (dios, if you're listening, this isn't personal, it's just that the record of how people react to you makes you a good example), there are two contrasts I think are important: dios actually cares about the argument; that's why he gets pissed off and says things he regrets. Second, if you look at his long legalistic arguments, you can see him responding to hypotheticals. People don't like the way he does it, but he is doing it. I think he takes the devil's advocate bit too far and talks himself into positions he doesn't really hold (or even into believing he really holds them), but that's different from trolling.
With Paris, I just don't get the sense that he's really open to discussion, even to elaborate a defense of his positions. He's back to the rhetorical games right away. Again, my comparison to adolescent reasoning styles: They focus on their opponent's inconsistencies, while ignoring or rationalizing their own. (I guess you could think of it as an arrested empathy.)
Anyway, as I said, I don't really have a suggestion. I don't think it would be useful to ban Paris; might be useful to time him out, but on what condition and for what crime? He's the same as he's ever been; when people get timed out it's usually related to some change in behavior. I don't really believe in technological solutions, either libertarian (e.g. the GM kill script) or communitarian ("karma", etc.), because they don't really address the issue, they just mask it.
posted by lodurr at 7:58 AM on December 28, 2005
BTW, I agree with you about that: It's not really tenable to reach for an objective standard. And it's also important (this is one thing I read you as saying) to distinguish between people and the roles they play: dios sometimes trolls (sure he does), but he is not a troll. His opinions are often offensive to many sensibilities, but I've come to believe (after some soul-searching) that he really is trying more to be a devil's advocate than a troll. Especially when he gets onto those legalistic/logicalistic kicks.
Paris is more purely oppositional. Using dios as a counter-example (dios, if you're listening, this isn't personal, it's just that the record of how people react to you makes you a good example), there are two contrasts I think are important: dios actually cares about the argument; that's why he gets pissed off and says things he regrets. Second, if you look at his long legalistic arguments, you can see him responding to hypotheticals. People don't like the way he does it, but he is doing it. I think he takes the devil's advocate bit too far and talks himself into positions he doesn't really hold (or even into believing he really holds them), but that's different from trolling.
With Paris, I just don't get the sense that he's really open to discussion, even to elaborate a defense of his positions. He's back to the rhetorical games right away. Again, my comparison to adolescent reasoning styles: They focus on their opponent's inconsistencies, while ignoring or rationalizing their own. (I guess you could think of it as an arrested empathy.)
Anyway, as I said, I don't really have a suggestion. I don't think it would be useful to ban Paris; might be useful to time him out, but on what condition and for what crime? He's the same as he's ever been; when people get timed out it's usually related to some change in behavior. I don't really believe in technological solutions, either libertarian (e.g. the GM kill script) or communitarian ("karma", etc.), because they don't really address the issue, they just mask it.
posted by lodurr at 7:58 AM on December 28, 2005
Lodurr, you are about half-right. I differ from dios in that I'm less optimistic about the typical Mefi reader/contributor's ability to admit that the Hate Bush Crowd might be wrong (to some degree). So, whereas Dios goes advances to the point of more substantive debate, I focus more (not completely, but more) on the initial phase; of getting attention and just putting opposing views out there.
Who is more lucid, Dios or myself? Not sure; we sort of play off each other, so it's kind of a false-question. And if more non-Leftists start posting on Metafilter, the tone of my posts will become more subdued (they already are when a given thread isn't so one-sided).
posted by ParisParamus at 9:45 AM on December 28, 2005
Who is more lucid, Dios or myself? Not sure; we sort of play off each other, so it's kind of a false-question. And if more non-Leftists start posting on Metafilter, the tone of my posts will become more subdued (they already are when a given thread isn't so one-sided).
posted by ParisParamus at 9:45 AM on December 28, 2005
It always has to be about Bush and the mythological left doesn't it. An essay on broken record performance is in order methinks.
posted by juiceCake at 10:12 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by juiceCake at 10:12 AM on December 28, 2005
JuiceCake, find me five Metafilter FPP that have commenced with the proposition that President Bush ISN'T horrible, dictatorial, etc.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:17 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 10:17 AM on December 28, 2005
Dagobert: Bullshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 AM on December 28, 2005
FFF: proving daily that Canadians aren't necessarily more civil than their brothers to the south...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:26 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 11:26 AM on December 28, 2005
The mythological Left? Yeah, sure. Look in the miroir...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:59 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 11:59 AM on December 28, 2005
Paris: Have you seen their legislative body in action?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:04 PM on December 28, 2005
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:04 PM on December 28, 2005
I focus more (not completely, but more) on . . . .getting attention
posted by ParisParamus at 9:45 AM PST on December 28 [!]
I love ya, pp. [I think it's working]
posted by exlotuseater at 1:20 PM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:45 AM PST on December 28 [!]
I love ya, pp. [I think it's working]
posted by exlotuseater at 1:20 PM on December 28, 2005
No, the "attention" of which I speak is the other point of view; not ME.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:57 PM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:57 PM on December 28, 2005
I would like to respectfully request that you consider no longer acting like a....oh, forget it.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:21 PM on December 28, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 2:21 PM on December 28, 2005
Honor your promise, Paris. Honor your promise.
posted by mediareport at 4:07 PM on December 28, 2005
posted by mediareport at 4:07 PM on December 28, 2005
"Cleanup on aisle 47857"
At least in these parts, the preposition is in.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:50 AM on December 29, 2005
At least in these parts, the preposition is in.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:50 AM on December 29, 2005
No, the "attention" of which I speak...
We knew what attention you were trying to speak of.
...the preposition is in.
... and the thread is over.
posted by lodurr at 6:13 AM on December 29, 2005
We knew what attention you were trying to speak of.
...the preposition is in.
... and the thread is over.
posted by lodurr at 6:13 AM on December 29, 2005
That's not a preposition!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:53 AM on December 29, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 10:53 AM on December 29, 2005
Opinions of any sort, are, for the most part, respected here, and when they're not, people are called out for it, regardless of this left/right dynamic, which is utterly simplistic anyway.
You are not correct. Fawning over left-wing politicians is a lot more socially acceptable than fawning over right-wing politicians.
Refusal to engage in civil discussion above a playground level, for most of the time, but rather dismissively insult most users isn't an opinion, it's deplorable.
Insulting some users or insulting people outside of metafilter is considered acceptable. When people who insult the majority of mefites is singled out, it seems to me more like mob rule rather than upholding a standard of civility.
Fine. I think that the majority of his posts are usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. It's my opinion. You're just arguing against it because you disagree with me. If you didn't, you wouldn't.
From the point of view of someone mostly outside of these political debates, it seems to me that people label illogical those arguments that they don't agree with, regardless of their merits.
Here's an opinion. The Earth is flat and, in Paris style, anyone who believes the Earth is spherical has swallowed the usual leftist drivel that masquerades as 'fact' here. If anyone can prove to me that the Earth is not flat, I'll retract my statement and my membership from the Flat Earth society, if there is one.
Earth is proven to be spherical.
Oh, I was talking about the Moon.
Again, other posters on the other end of the political spectrum do this all the time, although they're rarely called for it on MetaFilter. Actually, nobody on MetaFilter would probably even bother proving that the world is round.
posted by fred_ashmore at 11:07 AM on December 29, 2005
You are not correct. Fawning over left-wing politicians is a lot more socially acceptable than fawning over right-wing politicians.
Refusal to engage in civil discussion above a playground level, for most of the time, but rather dismissively insult most users isn't an opinion, it's deplorable.
Insulting some users or insulting people outside of metafilter is considered acceptable. When people who insult the majority of mefites is singled out, it seems to me more like mob rule rather than upholding a standard of civility.
Fine. I think that the majority of his posts are usually ludicrous by any standards of logic, intellectually dishonest, and embarassing. It's my opinion. You're just arguing against it because you disagree with me. If you didn't, you wouldn't.
From the point of view of someone mostly outside of these political debates, it seems to me that people label illogical those arguments that they don't agree with, regardless of their merits.
Here's an opinion. The Earth is flat and, in Paris style, anyone who believes the Earth is spherical has swallowed the usual leftist drivel that masquerades as 'fact' here. If anyone can prove to me that the Earth is not flat, I'll retract my statement and my membership from the Flat Earth society, if there is one.
Earth is proven to be spherical.
Oh, I was talking about the Moon.
Again, other posters on the other end of the political spectrum do this all the time, although they're rarely called for it on MetaFilter. Actually, nobody on MetaFilter would probably even bother proving that the world is round.
posted by fred_ashmore at 11:07 AM on December 29, 2005
Give it a rest. This discussion was over before it started. Nothing was learned, nobody changed any opinions, either their own or anybody else's. Those who thought Paris was a dick still think so; those who thought he's a cute and cuddly devil's advocate still think so; etc........
posted by lodurr at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2005
posted by lodurr at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2005
Argument for argument's sake is fine by me.
posted by fred_ashmore at 12:09 PM on December 29, 2005
posted by fred_ashmore at 12:09 PM on December 29, 2005
"Here's an opinion. The Earth is flat and, in Paris style, anyone who believes the Earth is spherical has swallowed the usual leftist drivel that masquerades as 'fact' here.
That's just crap. Do you honestly think that, for example, I don't the War in Iraq is a fantastic success? Do you think I'm just saying that to anger you? Do you think that I don't really believe that the Left in the US is intellectually bankrupt? I believe all of these things to be true, and you have no right or basis upon which to accuse me of not being completely genuine in these beliefs.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:12 PM on December 29, 2005
That's just crap. Do you honestly think that, for example, I don't the War in Iraq is a fantastic success? Do you think I'm just saying that to anger you? Do you think that I don't really believe that the Left in the US is intellectually bankrupt? I believe all of these things to be true, and you have no right or basis upon which to accuse me of not being completely genuine in these beliefs.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:12 PM on December 29, 2005
PP, I'm still waiting for you to either provide evidence that Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps or to retract your assertion that Clinton did so.
Cuz, you know, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're really interested in reasoned discourse. Unless you're not all that interested, of course. In which case, my bad.
posted by darkstar at 10:50 PM on December 29, 2005
Cuz, you know, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're really interested in reasoned discourse. Unless you're not all that interested, of course. In which case, my bad.
posted by darkstar at 10:50 PM on December 29, 2005
darkstar, I posted two pieces. I'll e-mail them to you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:43 AM on December 30, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 5:43 AM on December 30, 2005
Paris, they did not address the question. Did Clinton authorize warrantless wiretaps? All the evidence says no.
posted by caddis at 7:33 AM on December 30, 2005
posted by caddis at 7:33 AM on December 30, 2005
Paris, feel free to NOT email them to me, but simply to link them on the thread I indicated, the one in which you agreed to either:
a) provide evidence that Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens or
b) retract your assertion that he did so.
Pretty simple, really. No need to email me anything, since you made your assertions in public forum, and I rebutted them there, you can defend them there as well.
Just step up, you know? That you haven't done so yet seems to be an example of what a lot of people in this thread are frustrated about with you. You know, hopping into a thread to make baseless assertions yet being unwilling to acknowledge when you've been effectively rebutted.
Which, unless you propose to do one of the above two things (a or b), seems to be the inescapable conclusion about how you're choosing to handle this case.
posted by darkstar at 1:20 PM on December 30, 2005
a) provide evidence that Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens or
b) retract your assertion that he did so.
Pretty simple, really. No need to email me anything, since you made your assertions in public forum, and I rebutted them there, you can defend them there as well.
Just step up, you know? That you haven't done so yet seems to be an example of what a lot of people in this thread are frustrated about with you. You know, hopping into a thread to make baseless assertions yet being unwilling to acknowledge when you've been effectively rebutted.
Which, unless you propose to do one of the above two things (a or b), seems to be the inescapable conclusion about how you're choosing to handle this case.
posted by darkstar at 1:20 PM on December 30, 2005
Caddis, did he authorize them, or did his adminstration say he could? I can't prove the former, only the latter.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:52 PM on December 30, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 7:52 PM on December 30, 2005
He did not authorize them. Did his admin say he could? Show me.
posted by caddis at 5:39 AM on December 31, 2005
posted by caddis at 5:39 AM on December 31, 2005
This dance gets tiresome. You'll both go along picking increasinginly finer nits with one another's positions, meanwhile the important point gets lost in the nitpicking:
Every presidential administration asserts its right to some things that aren't legal. We all know that administrations are machines that largely operate outside of the president's specific oversight (and anyone who doesn't know that is just plain naive), and that the machine makes certain motions.
The real issue is: Does the President then go and order the execution of those things his administration has asserted its right to? The Bush '43 administration did, and does, and on a wholesale level. "This President" (as his followers were wont to call him in the first 8 months) has personally and emphatically asserted his right to do whatever the fuck he deems appropriate, screw the law.
Paris doing something interesting here. He's derailing into minutiae rather than justifying his positiong that it's OK to do it -- he's (again) using the adolescent defense of "well, Clinton's guys said it was OK, so Bush isn't doing anything wrong", instead of having the fortitude to make an argument on his own that the the spying is actually justified -- as another frequently-flamed conservative on this site has done at length. At least that guy had the guts to take a position and stand in the fire for it. Many of us thought it was completely and stunningly wrong -- but at least he had the balls to do it.
posted by lodurr at 5:56 AM on December 31, 2005
Every presidential administration asserts its right to some things that aren't legal. We all know that administrations are machines that largely operate outside of the president's specific oversight (and anyone who doesn't know that is just plain naive), and that the machine makes certain motions.
The real issue is: Does the President then go and order the execution of those things his administration has asserted its right to? The Bush '43 administration did, and does, and on a wholesale level. "This President" (as his followers were wont to call him in the first 8 months) has personally and emphatically asserted his right to do whatever the fuck he deems appropriate, screw the law.
Paris doing something interesting here. He's derailing into minutiae rather than justifying his positiong that it's OK to do it -- he's (again) using the adolescent defense of "well, Clinton's guys said it was OK, so Bush isn't doing anything wrong", instead of having the fortitude to make an argument on his own that the the spying is actually justified -- as another frequently-flamed conservative on this site has done at length. At least that guy had the guts to take a position and stand in the fire for it. Many of us thought it was completely and stunningly wrong -- but at least he had the balls to do it.
posted by lodurr at 5:56 AM on December 31, 2005
Paris doing something interesting here.
Really? Or are you just saying that?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:47 PM on December 31, 2005
Really? Or are you just saying that?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:47 PM on December 31, 2005
I find a lot of things to be interesting. I like watching the way couples argue with one another -- the little manipulative tricks they use to make the argument about the other person instead of about what it's actually about. I find stuff like that fascinating. So, yeah, it's interesting to me, on the same level as the conversation on the next barstool is interesting. I can see that it wouldn't be interesting to everyone. And I can especially see where it would start to get boring.
As for example, it has for me. It can be both interesting and boring at the same time, yet. (Bergman, anyone? Ozu?)
posted by lodurr at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2005
As for example, it has for me. It can be both interesting and boring at the same time, yet. (Bergman, anyone? Ozu?)
posted by lodurr at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2005
"He did not authorize them. Did his admin say he could? Show me."
Caddis, I two or three pieces, plus, I believe someone else posted that actual memo from the Department of Justice under Clinton per Jamie Gorelick.
Quit making me look worse than others have make me look. Unfairly.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:54 PM on January 1, 2006
Caddis, I two or three pieces, plus, I believe someone else posted that actual memo from the Department of Justice under Clinton per Jamie Gorelick.
Quit making me look worse than others have make me look. Unfairly.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:54 PM on January 1, 2006
Most of you are a bunch of anarchist and/or pacifist and or religion-hating assholes who will never give President Bush credit for anything good. Which deprives you of the right to criticize him. So, really, just fuck off.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:13 PM on January 1, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 4:13 PM on January 1, 2006
PP, either put up or shut up: Post the damn links to your assertion that Clinton bugged without authorization. You've had three *days* worth in this thread that you've blown smoke but produced no substance. What kind of threadcrapper bot are you?
posted by mk1gti at 5:29 PM on January 1, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 5:29 PM on January 1, 2006
No, I said Clinton's DOJ said it was legit. The only way you MIGHT know it was actually done was if someone leaked the fact. And I did post pieces demonstrating that the Clinton Admin viewed it as legit. So there!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:18 PM on January 1, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 6:18 PM on January 1, 2006
Where are the links? That is what all of us want to see. That is all we want to see at this point. Provide the links that you have refered to. I'm sure it can't be that difficult if you were offering to e-mail them to someone just a few days ago.
posted by mk1gti at 6:25 PM on January 1, 2006
posted by mk1gti at 6:25 PM on January 1, 2006
Quit making me look worse than others have make me look. Unfairly.
No one is being unfair to you. And lodurr's comment notwithstanding, no one is splitting hairs any finer than they were to begin with.
You made an assertion based on a Drudge report. The factual basis for the report was debunked clearly and without question. You agreed to research it further and come back either with a retraction or with further evidence by last Sunday. A week later, you still hadn't done so. You thereby made yourself look bad.
However, above, I note that on the 30th, above, you finally admitted that you could not prove that Clinton ever authorized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens in the US. Hence, I accept that as a de facto retraction of your assertion. Thank you for acknowledging that.
I will say that your subsequent comment is really quite alarming, though. It seems that being held to account and being required to admit your error evidently unleashed such anger that you lashed out in one of the crudest, most vitriolic and categorically accusatory comments I think I've ever seen posted on MeFi.
That really ought to be a wake-up call, Paris. No matter what you think of the people in this forum, this kind of behavior is unacceptably rude. At the very least, the adversarial nature of debate in MeFi seems to be adding stress to your life that is leading to quite unhealthy aggravation and poor anger management. You might seriously consider discontinuing participation in the comments for a while to cool off. Or possibly consider talking through this with someone you trust and asking them to help you gain perspective.
You owe it to yourself to work through whatever issue(s) it may be that is causing this angst. These are just my suggestions, but I'm saying this out of sincere concern.
posted by darkstar at 6:29 PM on January 1, 2006
No one is being unfair to you. And lodurr's comment notwithstanding, no one is splitting hairs any finer than they were to begin with.
You made an assertion based on a Drudge report. The factual basis for the report was debunked clearly and without question. You agreed to research it further and come back either with a retraction or with further evidence by last Sunday. A week later, you still hadn't done so. You thereby made yourself look bad.
However, above, I note that on the 30th, above, you finally admitted that you could not prove that Clinton ever authorized warrantless wiretaps on US citizens in the US. Hence, I accept that as a de facto retraction of your assertion. Thank you for acknowledging that.
I will say that your subsequent comment is really quite alarming, though. It seems that being held to account and being required to admit your error evidently unleashed such anger that you lashed out in one of the crudest, most vitriolic and categorically accusatory comments I think I've ever seen posted on MeFi.
That really ought to be a wake-up call, Paris. No matter what you think of the people in this forum, this kind of behavior is unacceptably rude. At the very least, the adversarial nature of debate in MeFi seems to be adding stress to your life that is leading to quite unhealthy aggravation and poor anger management. You might seriously consider discontinuing participation in the comments for a while to cool off. Or possibly consider talking through this with someone you trust and asking them to help you gain perspective.
You owe it to yourself to work through whatever issue(s) it may be that is causing this angst. These are just my suggestions, but I'm saying this out of sincere concern.
posted by darkstar at 6:29 PM on January 1, 2006
Paris: No, I said Clinton's DOJ said it was legit.
Now, now, you know better than that. :)
Your initial assertion was that Clinton authorized the wiretaps. You referenced a Drudge report to back you up. The Drudge report references the Executive Orders of Clinton and Carter. Those EOs clearly stated that the wiretaps had to be conducted under FISA provisions. FISA provisions require warrants. Hence, the EOs never authorized what Drudge said they did. Hence, your assertion was wrong.
When called on it, you stalled for time. During which, you then profferred the equivocation of the Clinton administration official saying that Clinton had the power to do this. But as you know, that is not what I called you on at all.
But, in any event, you've admitted above that you could not prove your original assertion. Sadly, you are now trying to bury that fact under a conflation with your other issue. Seriously, this isn't the sign of a healthy mind.
In any event, as you have functionally retracted (at least clearly discarded) the initial assertion you made, I'm satisfied. I am chagrined, however, that you are doing it in such a way as to seem extremely intellectually dishonest, though. But that's not a windmill I intend to tilt at further.
Happy New Year!
posted by darkstar at 6:41 PM on January 1, 2006
Now, now, you know better than that. :)
Your initial assertion was that Clinton authorized the wiretaps. You referenced a Drudge report to back you up. The Drudge report references the Executive Orders of Clinton and Carter. Those EOs clearly stated that the wiretaps had to be conducted under FISA provisions. FISA provisions require warrants. Hence, the EOs never authorized what Drudge said they did. Hence, your assertion was wrong.
When called on it, you stalled for time. During which, you then profferred the equivocation of the Clinton administration official saying that Clinton had the power to do this. But as you know, that is not what I called you on at all.
But, in any event, you've admitted above that you could not prove your original assertion. Sadly, you are now trying to bury that fact under a conflation with your other issue. Seriously, this isn't the sign of a healthy mind.
In any event, as you have functionally retracted (at least clearly discarded) the initial assertion you made, I'm satisfied. I am chagrined, however, that you are doing it in such a way as to seem extremely intellectually dishonest, though. But that's not a windmill I intend to tilt at further.
Happy New Year!
posted by darkstar at 6:41 PM on January 1, 2006
lodurr,
I generally agree with you. There are larger issues at stake that should be addressed.
It is impossible to do that, though, when participants in the debate refuse to be held to the most basic elements of reasoned discourse. One of which is that you have to be prepared to substantiate your assertions with facts and, if you can't, that you be prepared to withdraw them.
Paris wasn't doing that on such a simple point that it seemed relevant to take the opportunity to draw attention to it. And so I did so, as clearly as possible, restricting the issue to as narrow a question of fact as I could, so as to force him to be accountable to it. He could either substantiate, retract, or obfuscate. The first two are quite acceptable, whereas the third would demonstrate that he is not a sincere party to the debate.
Many people have already made that assertion of Paris before. Most notably on the WMD question. But I have wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, as it were. Unfortunately, given this very clear test case, Paris chose the third option (and worse, to additionally grossly insult those that were holding him accountable to reasonableness).
As far as the whole "Clinton approved it, too" argument is concerned, it's a tu quoque fallacy. As you noted, that anyone else commits a crime is not justification for allowing our current President to do so. So even if Paris were able to substantiate it (which he cannot) it would still be fallacious. But it's what Paris gave me to work with, so it's what I used.
I also appreciate your observations on the way people argue so as to derail the topic. I've often found that fascinating, myself. I confess that I sometimes suffer from hyperrationalism, I think. I don't know why my mind works that way, but when I see a logical fallacy, it is almost physically painful for me to endure. The benefit to such a visceral reaction to them is that it usually makes them fairly easy to spot. Usually.
posted by darkstar at 7:01 PM on January 1, 2006
I generally agree with you. There are larger issues at stake that should be addressed.
It is impossible to do that, though, when participants in the debate refuse to be held to the most basic elements of reasoned discourse. One of which is that you have to be prepared to substantiate your assertions with facts and, if you can't, that you be prepared to withdraw them.
Paris wasn't doing that on such a simple point that it seemed relevant to take the opportunity to draw attention to it. And so I did so, as clearly as possible, restricting the issue to as narrow a question of fact as I could, so as to force him to be accountable to it. He could either substantiate, retract, or obfuscate. The first two are quite acceptable, whereas the third would demonstrate that he is not a sincere party to the debate.
Many people have already made that assertion of Paris before. Most notably on the WMD question. But I have wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, as it were. Unfortunately, given this very clear test case, Paris chose the third option (and worse, to additionally grossly insult those that were holding him accountable to reasonableness).
As far as the whole "Clinton approved it, too" argument is concerned, it's a tu quoque fallacy. As you noted, that anyone else commits a crime is not justification for allowing our current President to do so. So even if Paris were able to substantiate it (which he cannot) it would still be fallacious. But it's what Paris gave me to work with, so it's what I used.
I also appreciate your observations on the way people argue so as to derail the topic. I've often found that fascinating, myself. I confess that I sometimes suffer from hyperrationalism, I think. I don't know why my mind works that way, but when I see a logical fallacy, it is almost physically painful for me to endure. The benefit to such a visceral reaction to them is that it usually makes them fairly easy to spot. Usually.
posted by darkstar at 7:01 PM on January 1, 2006
I am laughing my ass off.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on January 1, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on January 1, 2006
Paris, you are falling apart:
posted by caddis at 11:32 PM on January 1, 2006
No, I said Clinton's DOJ said it was legit. The only way you MIGHT know it was actually done was if someone leaked the fact. And I did post pieces demonstrating that the Clinton Admin viewed it as legit. So there!Looks to me like you asserted he did authorize them, not merely that his staff asserted he could. It's a stupid little point, because even if he did it wouldn't make GW's little excursion into your civil rights any more legal. It just shows that you lied, or that you overstepped and didn't have the guts to admit it. Gee, either way you are just like your hero. Face it, he is an incompetent child who has failed to make you any safer than you were before, but has managed to bust the budget, destroy America's reputation around the globe, and trample all over your civil rights. However, I am not all about criticism when it comes to GW; I am mightily impressed with his resting heart rate. The man is truly in great aerobic shape. That's something, no?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:18 PM PST on January 1 [!]
"CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER...
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER..."
--Drudge Report, now.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:34 AM EST on December 21 [!]
Optimus, Section 1 refers to Clinton authorizing searches without court order, for foreign intelligence purposes. It does not restrict things to non-US Citizens, or to searches outside the US.
So what is your point?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:02 PM EST on December 23 [!]
posted by caddis at 11:32 PM on January 1, 2006
Clinton's Department of Justice = Clinton, so what's your point? Jamie Gorelick would not have issued such a statement/Opinion without President Clinton OK'ing the Opinion. If you are taking the absurdly narrow position that neither President Clinton nor President Carter personally, verbally stated such, I have no words for you.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:57 AM on January 2, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 4:57 AM on January 2, 2006
Five Fresh Fish: that's because all you have is an ass.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:58 AM on January 2, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 4:58 AM on January 2, 2006
ParisParamus: ...Which deprives you of the right to criticize him. So, really, just fuck off.[g /] The Energizer Bunny thread, we have here. Sorry, stale, I know, but it's just so apt. I'm sure that Paris won't mind at all when we use the same logic on him. "You're just a liberal-hating atheist-bashing asshole, which deprives you of the right to criticize us."
If Paris hadn't been around here so long, I'd speculate that he's actually 16 years old. That's where his reasoning seems to be stuck.
(Though I'm zeroing in on who Paris is SP'ing for: I think he's really Dick Cheney.)
posted by lodurr at 6:20 AM on January 2, 2006
If you are taking the absurdly narrow position that neither President Clinton nor President Carter personally, verbally stated such, I have no words for you.
Sorry Paris. That dog won't hunt. As I noted clearly above, that dog is, in fact, quite dead.
posted by darkstar at 9:39 AM on January 2, 2006
Sorry Paris. That dog won't hunt. As I noted clearly above, that dog is, in fact, quite dead.
posted by darkstar at 9:39 AM on January 2, 2006
The reason I got plenty of ass, ParisParamus, is that quite unlike you, I have the love and social skills to maintain a twenty-year exclusive relationship with my wife, who is my best friend, redhot lover, and life companion.
Quite a sharp contrast to your lonely, loveless life, eh? How's your crazy French-Canadian chick doing ya? Didn't she dump your mangy ass a couple months ago? You poor fuckless fucker.
My favourite charity is Heifer.org. Shall I donate to them, see if they'll send you a goat?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:13 AM on January 2, 2006
Quite a sharp contrast to your lonely, loveless life, eh? How's your crazy French-Canadian chick doing ya? Didn't she dump your mangy ass a couple months ago? You poor fuckless fucker.
My favourite charity is Heifer.org. Shall I donate to them, see if they'll send you a goat?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:13 AM on January 2, 2006
FFF, you prove yourself over and over again to be a tactless, mean being.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:23 AM on January 2, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 11:23 AM on January 2, 2006
Oh boo-hoo-hoo.
Here's an idea: take your frustrations and dissatisfaction out on MeFi, like you always do. Go derail a thread with your self-proclaimed grand sense of "humour" that not a single soul on MeFi has ever claimed to "get." Or you could spew a few more lies, although I suspect darkstar is on your ass like a boil.
Told any cute girls that you are "ParisParamus" only to have them flee from you lately? Gosh, what a sadsack of psychological fuckuppedness you are!
Go on, Paris, head back into MeFi and call for the slaughter of Palestinians, Iraqis, and Latin American Presidents! It'll make you feel better about yourself!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:05 PM on January 2, 2006
Here's an idea: take your frustrations and dissatisfaction out on MeFi, like you always do. Go derail a thread with your self-proclaimed grand sense of "humour" that not a single soul on MeFi has ever claimed to "get." Or you could spew a few more lies, although I suspect darkstar is on your ass like a boil.
Told any cute girls that you are "ParisParamus" only to have them flee from you lately? Gosh, what a sadsack of psychological fuckuppedness you are!
Go on, Paris, head back into MeFi and call for the slaughter of Palestinians, Iraqis, and Latin American Presidents! It'll make you feel better about yourself!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:05 PM on January 2, 2006
Okay, this is way too much all the way around.
I'm outta.
posted by darkstar at 4:03 PM on January 2, 2006
I'm outta.
posted by darkstar at 4:03 PM on January 2, 2006
FFF, you and NoFundy are both stinky.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:41 PM on January 2, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 9:41 PM on January 2, 2006
ParisParamus, you've been spanked over and over this past few months. Take it like a man.
Almost all the regular and prolific posters know you as a worthless troll and have independently decided "I will not take the thing from your hand" is the best approach to dealing with you on MeFi.
Hell, even most of the recent newbies come to the party already suspecting you're a liar, a troll, and a witless waste of our time and space. They're more quickly now than ever discontinuing their attempts to hold discourse with you.
If it weren't for some these folk inappropriately addressing your trolling in MeFi, instead of MeTa, your daily McSuperSized shit on our dinner tables would go unremarked.
You got a choice, buddy: either you clean up your act in MeFi, or take the shitkicking you deserve. If this is your idea of fun, you're in luck: I'm in the mood for abuse. This week, I'm happy to fuck you long and hard like the two-bit attention-whore you are. Kiss my smooth-shaved balls, cocksucker, then turn around and bend over, 'cause I got a foot-long load of hate-on for you.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 PM on January 2, 2006
Almost all the regular and prolific posters know you as a worthless troll and have independently decided "I will not take the thing from your hand" is the best approach to dealing with you on MeFi.
Hell, even most of the recent newbies come to the party already suspecting you're a liar, a troll, and a witless waste of our time and space. They're more quickly now than ever discontinuing their attempts to hold discourse with you.
If it weren't for some these folk inappropriately addressing your trolling in MeFi, instead of MeTa, your daily McSuperSized shit on our dinner tables would go unremarked.
You got a choice, buddy: either you clean up your act in MeFi, or take the shitkicking you deserve. If this is your idea of fun, you're in luck: I'm in the mood for abuse. This week, I'm happy to fuck you long and hard like the two-bit attention-whore you are. Kiss my smooth-shaved balls, cocksucker, then turn around and bend over, 'cause I got a foot-long load of hate-on for you.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 PM on January 2, 2006
Just as an FYI PP, I am so sick of your purposeful, pointless, counterproductive derailing that I'm deploying a new script. Whenever I see one of your crappy, pointless commentaries I'm just going to post over and over again
Please ignore the ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
I will do this over and over again until people get the message that communicating with you in any way shape or form is pointless and therefore makes no sense whatsoever.
You will be shunned just as if you had been banned.
On the other hand, if you communicate as a mature, constructive adult I will back you up. I don't care if your personal or political beliefs do or don't match mine, only that you communicate in a functional and responsible manner. If you don't, you just get branded with 'threadcrapper' status.
So how about it PP, you have an opportunity here to carry through on that promise you made at the end of summer that you would try to be a better person, not the immature, childish wanker we've seen.
posted by mk1gti at 7:56 AM on January 3, 2006
Please ignore the ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
I will do this over and over again until people get the message that communicating with you in any way shape or form is pointless and therefore makes no sense whatsoever.
You will be shunned just as if you had been banned.
On the other hand, if you communicate as a mature, constructive adult I will back you up. I don't care if your personal or political beliefs do or don't match mine, only that you communicate in a functional and responsible manner. If you don't, you just get branded with 'threadcrapper' status.
So how about it PP, you have an opportunity here to carry through on that promise you made at the end of summer that you would try to be a better person, not the immature, childish wanker we've seen.
posted by mk1gti at 7:56 AM on January 3, 2006
Likewise, I will be posting a link to the "I will not take the thing from your hand" in any MeFi thread in which you are behaving like an ass. For the benefit of everyone else involved with MeFi, I will make every effort to do no more than that; I shall save the abuse for MeTa threads.
You have earned my perpetual loathing, and I spit in your face.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on January 3, 2006
You have earned my perpetual loathing, and I spit in your face.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on January 3, 2006
mk1gti, my promise extends only to active conduct; not responding in kind to such conduct. Besides, I've never EVER been that extreme in the "bad" direction. That's exactly why I've never been sanctioned by User #1. Don't confuse the inuendo with the reality!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:36 AM on January 4, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 5:36 AM on January 4, 2006
Actually, I will continue exactly as I have been all along. MORE insightful comments; MORE wittyness; and MORE counterpoint to the wimpy, wishy-washy leftists and pacifist of the world del mondo du monde....
PARISPARAMUS WILL NEVER CHANGE MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:40 AM on January 4, 2006
PARISPARAMUS WILL NEVER CHANGE MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:40 AM on January 4, 2006
ParisParamus: Actually, I will continue exactly as I have been all along. MORE insightful comments; MORE wittyness...If we look at the increase additively, 0+x=x. x could be .01. So we could get quantities of 0.01 more "wittyness" and "insightful comments". Somehow, that's just not making me snoopy-dance.
OTOH, if we look at it as a percent increase, it's even less encouraging. After all, x*0=0...
posted by lodurr at 6:13 AM on January 4, 2006
For all this viewing this post:
Please ignore the ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by mk1gti at 8:49 AM on January 4, 2006
Please ignore the ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by mk1gti at 8:49 AM on January 4, 2006
and MORE counterpoint to the wimpy, wishy-washy leftists and pacifist of the world del mondo du monde....
There it is again. Label a good argument leftist and you're done. You really do excel in embarrasing yourself. Cheers mate. You deserve a standing ovation!
posted by juiceCake at 8:49 PM on January 5, 2006
There it is again. Label a good argument leftist and you're done. You really do excel in embarrasing yourself. Cheers mate. You deserve a standing ovation!
posted by juiceCake at 8:49 PM on January 5, 2006
I could refrain from the epethet "left," I accept your challenge!
posted by ParisParamus at 10:19 PM on January 5, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 10:19 PM on January 5, 2006
epithet
posted by ParisParamus at 10:20 PM on January 5, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 10:20 PM on January 5, 2006
Do us all a favour and FOAD. I wipe things off my ass that could post more usefully to MeFi than you ever have.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:22 AM on January 6, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 11:22 AM on January 6, 2006
Do US all a favor and stay off of non-Canadian Web sites.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:21 PM on January 9, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 10:21 PM on January 9, 2006
One of the cool things about the My Comments page is the way that it can keep old threads alive long past their normal span of years, by bringing new posts in the thread to your attention.
One of the annoying things about the My Comments page is the way that it can keep old threads alive long past their normal span of years, by bringing new posts in the thread to your attention.
posted by lodurr at 7:53 AM on January 10, 2006
One of the annoying things about the My Comments page is the way that it can keep old threads alive long past their normal span of years, by bringing new posts in the thread to your attention.
posted by lodurr at 7:53 AM on January 10, 2006
Keep sucking my cock, Paris, keep sucking hard. You know you can't resist it.
Sorry, lodurr.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:21 AM on January 10, 2006
Sorry, lodurr.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:21 AM on January 10, 2006
FFF, a Mac user. There is no justice.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:03 PM on January 11, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 10:03 PM on January 11, 2006
... and lodurr, and KirkJobSluder, and Matthowie, and.....
posted by lodurr at 4:41 AM on January 12, 2006
posted by lodurr at 4:41 AM on January 12, 2006
Luminaries, all, except one...
posted by ParisParamus at 2:09 PM on January 13, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 2:09 PM on January 13, 2006
I can only speak for myself, Paris, but I'm quite happy not to be a light fixture.
posted by lodurr at 6:35 PM on January 13, 2006
posted by lodurr at 6:35 PM on January 13, 2006
No, I was referring to FFF!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:34 AM on January 14, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 8:34 AM on January 14, 2006
Lodurr, if we meet some day, you may surprised at how much you like me.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:18 AM on January 14, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 10:18 AM on January 14, 2006
Sorry, PP, I got busy and couldn't abuse you these past few days. I hope you fulfilled your attention-whoring needs in other ways during that period. I still don't really have time for you, so sad.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:41 AM on January 14, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 11:41 AM on January 14, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by wakko at 12:22 AM on December 27, 2005