Not Commenting? Leave Them Alone

February 6, 2006 1:44 PM

I don't think users should take pot shots at other users for their assumed political views when the other users haven't commented in the thread. Most recently, Malor wrotes, "I wonder where the primary shills for the Republicans, like dios or ParisParamus, go when threads like this come up?" Neither dios nor ParisParamus made any comments in that thread. According to Google, dios, for example, has been mentioned in about 100 threads in which he has not posted, and Yahoo puts that number much higher. Political threads are contentious enough without the sniping.
posted by monju_bosatsu to Etiquette/Policy at 1:44 PM (119 comments total)

Yeah, there's no better sign that someone has nothing to say in a thread than the calling out of someone who's not even there. It's classic "debate the member, not the opinion" stuff, made even more hilarious by that particular member in question's absence.
posted by mediareport at 1:47 PM on February 6, 2006

I couldn't agree more. If this became the general standard of behavior, it would make a huge improvement to the civility of this place.
posted by mojohand at 1:48 PM on February 6, 2006

Yeah, I totally agree and frequently delete dumb comments like that.

It's a terrible thing to do, to project a one-dimensional quality about others and goad them into fitting that, even if they are nowhere to be found.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2006

Number 1 agrees, for what that may be worth.
posted by Gator at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2006

1) In general I agree with what you are getting at.
2) A cursory glance at those results indicates that more than a few where not idle potshots, and not even all where negative.
3) Cool search engine phrasing
4) (as expressed elsewhere) How can we actually stop it other than perhaps ignoring it?
posted by edgeways at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2006

I agree with you, it's annoying and unhelpful.
posted by Rothko at 1:51 PM on February 6, 2006

Amen.
posted by boo_radley at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2006

Yep. Bad behavior.

Edgeways, probably the best we can do (besides ignoring and hoping) is gentle shaming. Don't get let yourself get into a flamewar over it, but if someone takes a lame potshot at an absent member, you might ask them to say something substantial or nothing at all and to not take lame potshots at absent members.
posted by cortex at 1:54 PM on February 6, 2006

That said, some people might do well to take more responsibility for the content of their comments.
posted by Rothko at 1:57 PM on February 6, 2006

Man, I am so glad that loser blue_beetle isn't here. He'ld definately have an opinion on that. Crazy liberal conservative jerk!
posted by blue_beetle at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2006

Hey, they earned their reputation.
posted by wakko at 2:00 PM on February 6, 2006

So no more summoning of bevets?
posted by brownpau at 2:01 PM on February 6, 2006

Wow. Good point, wakko.

*spraypaints "WHORE" on garage doors of local flirts*

Whores earned it.
posted by cortex at 2:03 PM on February 6, 2006

What's this on my garage?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:04 PM on February 6, 2006

That said, some people might do well to take more responsibility for the content of their comments.

Rothko, I agree.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:04 PM on February 6, 2006

Monju, what does that have to do with calling people out, in a thread in which they don't participate? Oh, nothing at all, right.
posted by Rothko at 2:07 PM on February 6, 2006

cortex, nobody's been damaging the property of dios or PP. But, otherwise, what a great analogy!
posted by wakko at 2:07 PM on February 6, 2006

Um, both comments are you making snide remarks about dios in threads in which he did not participate. Which is exactly what this thread is about.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:08 PM on February 6, 2006

I'm surprised Optimus Chyme hasn't yet chimed in.
posted by mischief at 2:09 PM on February 6, 2006

Sort of off-topic, I'm glad that people like dios and PP are around. If there was no one in the MeFi community with a strong right-wing POV, this place would just be a whole bunch of mutually-masturbatory liberalismos. I'm as left as the next guy, but all things being equal, I prefer conflict over the lack thereof.
posted by Plutor at 2:09 PM on February 6, 2006

Chymed in.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2006

I'm as left as the next guy, but all things being equal, I prefer conflict over the lack thereof.

There's a difference, IMO, between a healthy political discussion and the kinds of derails PP and (to a much lesser extent) dios routinely create.
posted by wakko at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2006

Um, both comments are you making snide remarks about dios in threads in which he did not participate. Which is exactly what this thread is about.

I don't know. At the time, Keith was saying something rude about a family member, which reminded me an awful lot of the kinds of things Dios says and has said to me and others. Now that you bring it up, since it's double-standards day at Metafilter, I take back my previous comment.
posted by Rothko at 2:13 PM on February 6, 2006

I suppose I'll agree that such taunting is somewhat ill-mannered.
However, the behaviour of the posters in question has been so monumentally detrimental to mefi, that this complaint seems quite trivial in comparison.
posted by Zetetics at 2:14 PM on February 6, 2006

EB said something you didn't like, so you insulted him by associating him with dios, when dios was nowhere to be found. How is that not making a snide remark about a user who is not participating in the thread?

So wait, now that you've withdrawn your agreement, you're saying that you think that sniping at absent users is in fact enjoyable and helpful, rather than annoying and unhelpful? Well, that's certainly a community-minded attitude. And what does that have to do with double standards?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:18 PM on February 6, 2006

If I Had An Anus wins.
posted by mischief at 2:24 PM on February 6, 2006

wakko, "they've earned their reputation" is defensive crap. To say someone has earned a reputation is to say that certain people have an opinion of that person. That'd be the people who have interacted with the party in question in a reputation-making way. That's earning a reputation.

But when we're willing to go about informing third parties of that reputation, when we're okay declaring and perpetuating our personal (or, worse, gossipy, second-hand) opinion of other people in their absence, the question of what they have and haven't done pretty much goes out the window. That's not a reputation earned; that's a reputation projected. It's no longer about the party in question, it's about the spitefulness and judgemental nature of the people talking about 'em.
posted by cortex at 2:25 PM on February 6, 2006

Well, Rothko was also demanding mathowie give EB a time-out.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:27 PM on February 6, 2006

(Consider, as an example, someone sniping about Rothko in AskMe, based on old AlexReynolds drama. Is there a connection? Sure. Does that mean that Rothko-in-AskMe, who is a pretty well-behaved and helpful citizen, has earned those petty drama snipes? That the sniper is justified and not just being a prick out of spite?)
posted by cortex at 2:28 PM on February 6, 2006

So wait, now that you've withdrawn your agreement

I didn't agree to anything. I expressed an opinion.

you're saying that you think that sniping at absent users is in fact enjoyable and helpful, rather than annoying and unhelpful?

I don't know if it is enjoyable, but I appreciate your quoting me because now I know that sometimes comparisons on the basis of what people say are helpful to get the point across succinctly. EB was being a genuine creep and was trolling for a response.

Further, were you going to call him out with as much brazen sanctimony as you did me, for insulting a family member of mine, who was not a participant in the thread and had no way to defend herself? Probably not.
posted by Rothko at 2:29 PM on February 6, 2006

I didn't call you out at all, much less with "brazen sanctimony," until you agreed with me and smugly suggested that dios "might do well to take more responsibility for the content of [his] comments." I just thought it was interesting, given that you're not entirely innocent yourself. If you want to rail away at me for some imagined "double standard," feel free, but I'm not the one making comments about absent members.

As for EB, I haven't followed that particular grudge match. If he, as you say, insulted one of your family members, then he should be criticized for it. I should note, of course, that EB hasn't participated in this thread, either.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:34 PM on February 6, 2006

I should note, of course, that EB hasn't participated in this thread, either.

And that didn't stop you from bringing him into the thread, either.
posted by Rothko at 2:37 PM on February 6, 2006

Wow, Rothko. Just wow.
posted by mediareport at 2:38 PM on February 6, 2006

Wow, Rothko. Just wow.

Wow, mediareport. Just wow.
posted by Rothko at 2:40 PM on February 6, 2006

I didn't bring up EB. I responded to you, by linking to a comment you made, in which you insulted EB. Also, compare "I agree with you, it's annoying and unhelpful," with "I didn't agree to anything." Huh?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:40 PM on February 6, 2006

This reminds me of The Godfather, except instead of being an epic tale of family and vendettas, it's just about a big whiny dork with a grudge.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:41 PM on February 6, 2006

Hair splitting time: he was expressing personal agreement with a sentiment, rather than agreeing to follow a contract of behavior. Kind of a bullshitty distinction to make, but it's there to be made. Rothko?
posted by cortex at 2:42 PM on February 6, 2006

compare "I agree with you, it's annoying and unhelpful," with "I didn't agree to anything."

There's your wow factor right there, Rothko. Dude, do you even read your own posts before firing away?
posted by mediareport at 2:43 PM on February 6, 2006

I didn't bring up EB. I responded to you, by linking to a comment you made, in which you insulted EB.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. I responded by accurately calling him a troll.

Also, compare "I agree with you, it's annoying and unhelpful," with "I didn't agree to anything." Huh?

It's an opinion, not a contract: "I agree with you, [that] it's annoying and unhelpful."
posted by Rothko at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2006

Ding!
posted by cortex at 2:48 PM on February 6, 2006

Dude, do you even read your own posts before firing away?

Yeah, but it would take too long to explain, and you and several others wouldn't want to rethink your impression of me, anyway, regardless of facts.
posted by Rothko at 2:48 PM on February 6, 2006

Yeah, that's a bullshitty distinction all right. "Oh, I *totally* agree, but it has no effect on my behavior at the site!"

*laughs* How hypocritical can one person get in one thread? Bravo, sweetie, keep on keeping on.
posted by mediareport at 2:51 PM on February 6, 2006

wouldn't want to rethink your impression of me

There's a lot of truth to that, which sort of cuts back to the topic of the thread.

But Rothko, the fact that you agree that a class of behavior is annoying and unhelpful but pointedly disclaim that you aren't agreeing to avoid that same behavior isn't exactly flattering.
posted by cortex at 2:51 PM on February 6, 2006

If he, as you say, insulted one of your family members, then he should be criticized for it.

Glad to fucking hear it, finally.
posted by Rothko at 2:51 PM on February 6, 2006

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. I responded by accurately calling him a troll.

Right, which is (a) completely beside the point, and (b) a perfect example of the behavior I criticized in my post. My purpose in pointing to your comment had nothing to do with EB; it was an example of a comment you made about dios in dios' absence. A point you seem to have ignored, by the way. You responded by insulting EB some more, when he is not the subject of this thread, nor has he participated. A real primer, in fact, on the behavior to avoid.

It's an opinion, not a contract: "I agree with you, [that] it's annoying and unhelpful."

Right again, and then you withdrew your comment, which I took to mean that you changed your opinion. Who said anything about contracts? If withdrawing your comment doesn't mean that you changed your opinion, than what was your purpose in withdrawing it? What's that about a double standard?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:54 PM on February 6, 2006

Such drama...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:57 PM on February 6, 2006

...queen.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:58 PM on February 6, 2006

You've really turned this into a divisive trainwreck, Rothko.
posted by boo_radley at 2:59 PM on February 6, 2006

But Rothko, the fact that you agree that a class of behavior is annoying and unhelpful but pointedly disclaim that you aren't agreeing to avoid that same behavior isn't exactly flattering.

Maybe, but I think monju is taking serious liberties with the first quote — and the second doesn't even make any sense since it was in response to the very behavior monju is complaining about. But you'd prefer to read my response out of context, that's fine: it's how things are done here.

Perhaps Dios is not trolling Metafilter at this very second, but at the time, he was, and the comparison would have stood up well. EB was behaving as a troll, and he was compared with one, accurately. I don't apologize for calling EB a troll, and I withdraw my opinion. Deal.

You've really turned this into a divisive trainwreck, Rothko.

Bullshit.
posted by Rothko at 3:00 PM on February 6, 2006

That's an excellent example of exactly how you turned this thread into a divisive trainwreck.
posted by boo_radley at 3:01 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko, Monju, could you guys take it to email? No, to snail-mail. Written in quill pens, sealed with wax, and delivered by swarthy, colorful peasants couriers on old mules. With any luck, some of them would get lost in early snowstorms as they cross the mountains, and burn the contents of their mailbags as they endeavor to keep warm. Yes, that would be helpful.

And oh, I agree with Monju's original point.
posted by LarryC at 3:05 PM on February 6, 2006

To be fair, in the google link there are a few false positives. this is the first link that comes up for me. It is a thread in which dios the metafilter user is never mentioned.

Also his user page is listed, that shouldn't count either.

Will this MeTa count when it gets indexed?

Here are a few more:

http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/31207
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/25926
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/39789
posted by nomad at 3:08 PM on February 6, 2006

But you'd prefer to read my response out of context, that's fine: it's how things are done here.

Give me some credit; I'm doing the same for you.
posted by cortex at 3:11 PM on February 6, 2006

How can I possibly compete with this natural lunacy?
posted by mischief at 3:12 PM on February 6, 2006

That's an excellent example of exactly how you turned this thread into a divisive trainwreck.

Bullshit. And repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
posted by Rothko at 3:13 PM on February 6, 2006

baby jesus is weeping
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:18 PM on February 6, 2006

posted by mischief How can I possibly compete with this natural lunacy?

I prefer to watch Rothko swirling aimlessly, then speeding into a frenzied vortex, like a swatch of toilet paper circling in the bowl.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:18 PM on February 6, 2006

Personal attacks on another user are a bad idea, but most people who say they don't like reading them (when funny and when aligned with one's sympathies) are lying.

That said, it's easy to pinpoint the asshattery of calling another user a fuckwit, douchenozzle, et al. However, some users have a habit of smearing all of mefi as being terrorists, hating America, KOS-drones, terrorist sympathizers, moral cretins, etc.

If you're going to fling that type of shit, expect healthy chunks of said turds to smack you in the nose, frequently, and please god, don't whine about it.

PS Matt please kill me then this thread kthxbye.
posted by bardic at 3:20 PM on February 6, 2006

Anyway, aside from the ongoing Alex vs. the World grudgematch, I do want to address a potential remedy. The comment by Malor,and another by wakko in the thread to which I linked in my original post are still there. Matt can condemn that kind of behavior all he wants in MetaTalk, but unless he actually deletes some of those comments, users will assume that it's acceptable to make them.

Rothko wrote: Maybe, but I think monju is taking serious liberties with the first quote — and the second doesn't even make any sense since it was in response to the very behavior monju is complaining about.

I didn't take any liberties with any quotes. I only linked to your comments. Both comments are insulting remarks about dios, when dios was not participating in either thread. In any case, here are three more. Again, what's this about a double standard?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:27 PM on February 6, 2006

A fundamental, maybe the fundamental factor in the entire history of human conflict is "he deserved it". Thus is any behavior justified; one is always virtuous and one's enemies always wicked; never is wrongdoing evaluated on its own terms.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:28 PM on February 6, 2006

Interestingly, monju, the second link was my pointed imitation of someone doing the exact same thing you're bitching about in this thread.
posted by Rothko at 3:30 PM on February 6, 2006

Be silent, thou pompous windbag , thou besmircher of the migs , Be silent for evermore i say !
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:33 PM on February 6, 2006

So? You've established that you know better, and you do it anyway.
posted by cortex at 3:33 PM on February 6, 2006

never is wrongdoing evaluated on its own terms

Your comments of late are very ironic. Did you ever stop to think maybe you were out of line?
posted by Rothko at 3:34 PM on February 6, 2006

Kettle's comments of late are very ironic. Did you ever stop to think maybe you were out of line?
posted by Pot at 3:35 PM on February 6, 2006

Matt can condemn that kind of behavior all he wants in MetaTalk, but unless he actually deletes some of those comments, users will assume that it's acceptable to make them.

Well, like he said upthread, he does often delete those comments. Problem is, sometimes he doesn't see them until they've been responded to or the drama has escalated, and he and Jessamyn have said in the past that they're reluctant to delete inflammatory comments at that point because it makes a kind of "hole" in the thread; people notice that some comments are missing and other comments make no sense as a result, etc. Plus there's the whole inevitable "Why was my comment deleted OMG cenXorship" business that's very trying for both of them.

I wish they'd delete them anyway, and maybe send along a few "knock it the fuck off" emails for good measure against the worst offenders, but beyond that I don't know what can be done.
posted by Gator at 3:35 PM on February 6, 2006

Be Silent All !

Why is this ethereal migs hating wretch still amongst us , matthew ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:35 PM on February 6, 2006

Pot's comments of late are very ironic. Did you ever stop to think maybe you were out of line?
posted by Kettle at 3:36 PM on February 6, 2006

You've established that you know better, and you do it anyway.

No, I've established that certain people can do whatever they damn well please here, include taking someone else's words well out of context.
posted by Rothko at 3:36 PM on February 6, 2006

Let the games begin! Pot versus Kettle. Who will win?
posted by ericb at 3:37 PM on February 6, 2006

I don't, however, like you, Miguel, and your self-indulgent, ostentatious MeTawhatsits, lately with bonus whining. You can leave.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:15 AM GMT on August 16 [!]


and why is this fellow still here ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:39 PM on February 6, 2006

Bill Leavy has decided that I will win.
posted by Pot at 3:40 PM on February 6, 2006

I lost the thread. Lost it years ago. And no ten-year pin was going to win me back a destiny long since squandered on micro-brews I secretly detested and cheap self-satisfied anonymous rants. But destiny is for tourists. I was a journalist of unutilized crystalline spunk. A diarist of masturbatory faux-witty allusions swathed in hoary five syllable puns. It was time to dump in the bleach. Turn the dial to hot. Time for the sockpuppet to fade away. Damned to an eternity of wiping ionized dust from the virtual bookshelves of better minds.
posted by Kettle at 3:42 PM on February 6, 2006

Mischief wins the thread.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:43 PM on February 6, 2006

Thou doth agree with Sgt. Serenity--silence, I say! Thy frenzied bleatings of Rothko remind us all of self-fellating swine massaged to climax by your strumpet mother! Nay, such a sound leaves thee feelings tinged of dread, like cleaning one's ears with Q-Tips dipped in Vaseline! Begone, you boorish lout, back to the barn in which you were born!
posted by fandango_matt at 3:44 PM on February 6, 2006

No, I've established that certain people can do whatever they damn well please here, include taking someone else's words well out of context.

Would you stop railing on the goddam injustice of the world and listen to yourself? You've behaved like a crazy person in the past, you've got into tireless, highly personal "no u" "no u" arguments umpteen times in your tenure here. It's ridiculous that you would be complaining that other people are getting some sort of pass on bad behavior.

It's understandable that you'd be bothered by how other people behave. It's gonna happen to everyone. So life goes. But to be a total asshat in the service a quest to decry asshattery is ridiculouslness.
posted by cortex at 3:45 PM on February 6, 2006

baby Muhammad is weeping

Oh noes! Somone just torched my car!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:48 PM on February 6, 2006

It's understandable that you'd be bothered by how other people behave.

Thanks.
posted by Rothko at 3:49 PM on February 6, 2006

I just saw a hooker who looked just like Alice Cooper.
posted by mischief at 3:50 PM on February 6, 2006

It's understandable that you'd be bothered by how other people behave.

Thanks.
posted by Rothko

We understand because we have to put up with you.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:51 PM on February 6, 2006

but most people who say they don't like reading them (when funny and when aligned with one's sympathies) are lying.

There's probably a lot of truth to that. Too damn much, actually.

If you're going to fling that type of shit, expect healthy chunks of said turds to smack you in the nose, frequently, and please god, don't whine about it.

But that's not the issue, is it? monju_bosatsu's objection (and please correct me if I'm wrong, m_b) is that baiting users into threads they are not participating in sucks.

And he's right.

So? You've established that you know better, and you do it anyway.

Pretty clearly.

Especially since I remember him throwing around the word "hypocrite" in regards to people who used real names rather than Mefi usernames. I know you're on a "some people get can get away with anything" kick at the moment, Rothko, but you're in this thread, so expect healthy chunks of turds, etc., etc.

On preview: kind of what cortex said. Alex, (and my name is Keith, too. Feel free to use it but it will probably only confuse things,) you're clearly not stupid, but you display a stunning lack of self-awareness. Please, think about just maybe getting someone you trust to look over your shoulder sometimes.
posted by Cyrano at 3:52 PM on February 6, 2006

We understand because we have to put up with you.

You are so awesome. Pat yourself on the back.
posted by Rothko at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2006

Especially since I remember him throwing around the word "hypocrite" in regards to people who used real names rather than Mefi usernames.

When?!
posted by Rothko at 3:56 PM on February 6, 2006

-- It's understandable that you'd be bothered by how other people behave.

Thanks.

You know what? You're welcome. A lot of people here are actually pretty empathetic; a lot of us make a genuine effort much of the time to look at other users fairly and with some sense of humanity.

But I have a hard time not hearing that "thanks" as a smug kissoff, because I get the feeling some times that you aren't looking for any sort of real connection, and sort of true shared understanding with the other folks you're arguing with. The impression I take from this shit is that you only care about being right in whatever carefully-qualified sense you can manage. And that's a pretty shitty way to treat other people, especially other people who are trying to give you the benefit of the doubt despite bad behavior.

I could be wrong, but you keep reverting to snipe and petty argument instead of acknowledging your own actions, and that doesn't give me a whole lot to work with.

So yes. Yo're welcome. Please try to consider what it means that I said it in the first place.
posted by cortex at 3:58 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko - I have a serious, non-snarky question to ask: what do you hope to accomplish here?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:58 PM on February 6, 2006

But I have a hard time not hearing that "thanks" as a smug kissoff

That was the lone sentence from what you said that even barely acknowledged the reality of the situation — the rest was just pile-on. If you want to interprete my response as a smug kissoff, think about what you put around that sentence.
posted by Rothko at 4:03 PM on February 6, 2006

Should we start the images now?
posted by fandango_matt at 4:04 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko - I have a serious, non-snarky question to ask: what do you hope to accomplish here?

The usual assholes here would have kept their opinions unchanged, regardless of whether I said anything or not.
posted by Rothko at 4:06 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko, I was thinking of this comment. (Also here.)
posted by Cyrano at 4:07 PM on February 6, 2006

Should we start the images now?

Good for you, creep.
posted by Rothko at 4:07 PM on February 6, 2006

"regardless of whether I said anything or not."

I can't top that.
posted by mischief at 4:10 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko, I was thinking of this comment. (Also here.)

And that has to do with what, specifically, about Monju's complaint?!
posted by Rothko at 4:11 PM on February 6, 2006

i'll take 10 dios and a dozen ParisParamus over that snarling insecure schoolboy Rothko and his retarded cousin Optimum Whine any day. any. day.
posted by quonsar at 4:12 PM on February 6, 2006

Post your pissing elephant, quonsar. That'll make them happy.
posted by Rothko at 4:13 PM on February 6, 2006

Rothko, with all rancor carefully put aside, you really do seem to have a persecution complex to some degree and I really think it strongly colors your experience of both how others behave, and yourself. I've come to really, really not like you, but even with that being the case, I feel compassion toward you with regard to how you don't seem to avoid digging yourself into holes like you're doing here. A lot of your FPPs are quite good, you have some good things to say, but you need to discover and develop some habits that shortcircuit this tendency. I've had to develop strategies for avoiding the kind of behavior here on MeFi that I dislike in myself and isn't productive. I'm not always successful, but I am more often than not.

And On Preview: q's comment may be sincere and intended to illuminate, but it comes at a bad time in this thread. Don't let q push you over the edge, Rothko.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:13 PM on February 6, 2006

"The usual assholes here would have kept their opinions unchanged, regardless of whether I said anything or not."

Maybe - but that still doesn't answer my question. What do you hope to accomplish with your participation in this thread? Are you just planning to take on all comers until Matt closes down the thread, or were you hoping to sway the opinions of those who are not "The usual assholes?" Because I have to say - you haven't done yourself any favors in this thread, if that's the case.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:16 PM on February 6, 2006

Take a breather, Rothko. Seriously. Stop lashing out at others like this. It's not productive. It's not healthy. It only hurts Metafilter. If you want others to rethink their impression of you, would you want them to do it based on your contributions to this thread?
posted by boo_radley at 4:16 PM on February 6, 2006

And that has to do with what, specifically, about Monju's complaint?!

Nothing at all. I provided an example, based on cortex's comment, that I thought was a reasonable illustration of his point. At one point you seemed to all the world not to like the idea of people being referred to by anything other than their usernames. I think that's totally fair and would agree with you. But now you're doing it, too. You don't get to use "everyone else is doing it," because I'm going to assume you're over the age of twelve, so I was curious what had caused your opinion on the matter to shift. It's a bit of a tangent, sure, but not a derail.

(And, yeah, that "over the age of twelve" comment was a bit snarky. But it's not an acceptable excuse. Period. That doesn't mean plenty of people, God knows inlcuding me, don't use it on occasion. But don't try to pretend it's not wrong.)
posted by Cyrano at 4:28 PM on February 6, 2006

WOW PEOPLE, JUST, WOW!

Also I agree that it's lame in general. On the other hand, A comparing someone B to someone C whom both A and B know is somewhat valid as a rhetorical tool, and may not necessarily be wrong in and of itself, even if the comparison to C is meant in a negative way. Rothko could have said that, but instead decided to act like a whiny baby as usual. Just like everyone else around here all the time.
posted by delmoi at 4:35 PM on February 6, 2006

To answer your question, Cyrano, it's because I had in the past referred to him as "AlexReynolds" or "Alex", not for the purpose of outing him in the same sense that someone would use someone else's first name on MeFi, but because he was well-known as AlexReynolds and until recently, I continued to think of him as "Alex". Secondarily, one of the reasons I don't like Rothko is his rejoining MeFi with another name while his current one was in a timeout and I think at the least he shouldn't be able to avoid being known for his earlier behavior.

However, Rothko does not believe my primary explanation, and he sees my second as an unfair persecution that is qualitatively equivalent to his calling me "Keith". Therefore, he determined to call me "Keith", even after I had aquiesed to never calling him by anything other than Rothko, and he continues to do so and it's been months since we had that argument. I can only guess that he does this because he dearly believes that I am a huge miscreant that he should continue to prod and complain about until justice is served. The "prodding" part is, I suppose, his attempt at delivering some form of justice himself. Though what that is, I cannot say.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:36 PM on February 6, 2006

Matt can condemn that kind of behavior all he wants in MetaTalk, but unless he actually deletes some of those comments, users will assume that it's acceptable to make them.

As Gator said upthread, once they're linked in MetaTalk or way up in a thread they're harder to delete. I've got a chat client running a lot of the day, so if you see a comment that's just a user-attack or troll with no relevance to the thread, feel free to IM me or mathowie about it. I especially feel this way about comments that are like "Oh yeah, well back in 1994 you said THIS" as if everyone on the site is a two-dimensional character that ever changes. Accountability is important, but bringing up ancient shit just because you're trying to pick a new fight is tiresome and distracting.

In MetaTalk the gloves are a little more off and more of that sort of poo-flinging behavior is okay, with somewhat predictable results.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:37 PM on February 6, 2006

"poo-flinging behavior"

... and to think that people actually pay good money to see Rob Schneider movies.
posted by mischief at 4:40 PM on February 6, 2006

Incidentally, I answered your question, Cyrano, not to bait Rothko back into the thread, but to state his case for him, particularly that I previously called him "Alex", where, in the current circumstances, he stating his case would likely not be listened to. I can't completely present without bias, since I don't agree with it. But certainly his calling me "Keith" is not something completely out-of-the-blue and he believes he has been provoked to do so.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:41 PM on February 6, 2006

Hmm, I posted that without reading the whole thread. I see we've gone from the 'complain about rothko' phase to the 'try to figure out what's wrong with rothko' phase. Yes rothko, what is your problem? It's just a friggin' website, for gods sake why do you care so much, and why do you type so much when it's obvious that it has the opposite effect of what you intended?
posted by delmoi at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2006

WHAT
THE
FUCK
ROTHKO?

Are you, like, perpetually and spontaneously combustible or what? Try menthols or something.
posted by loquacious at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2006

Ah, I had no idea who the hell he was talking about when he said "Keith".
posted by delmoi at 4:47 PM on February 6, 2006

Why is Rothko mad about the cups?
posted by fandango_matt at 4:50 PM on February 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Vernon,

We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. But we think you're crazy to make an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us... In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain... and an athlete... and a basket case... a princess... and a criminal.

Does that answer your question?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:58 PM on February 6, 2006

Haven't we been here before?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:00 PM on February 6, 2006

Some folks put the ME in MeTa.

Fortunately, however, there's also TEAM in MeTa.
This gives us textual support for both spectacular individual flameout performances AND pileons, both of which I enjoy too much.

On a more humanistic note, I think cortex has it.
posted by kosem at 5:04 PM on February 6, 2006

and his retarded cousin Optimum Whine any day. any. day.
posted by quonsar at 4:12 PM PST on February 6

Oh, don't be mad just because it was so much easier to be the funny one when there were only a thousand members.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:06 PM on February 6, 2006

P.S. Rothko I think this counts as a new flameout/day record. Pace yourself, buddy.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:07 PM on February 6, 2006

Some folks put the ME in MeTa.

But, there's no 'I' in 'TEAM.' Can't we just all get along? Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya!
posted by ericb at 5:08 PM on February 6, 2006

What's interesting is "Talk At Me" is an anagram for "MetaTalk".
posted by fandango_matt at 5:08 PM on February 6, 2006

META = TEAM!!!
posted by ericb at 5:09 PM on February 6, 2006

And then we all learned the true meaning of Christmas.
posted by elwoodwiles at 5:11 PM on February 6, 2006

MetaTalk = Matt Leak. How appropriate.
posted by aberrant at 5:12 PM on February 6, 2006

Yeah! Ham!
posted by fandango_matt at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2006

closing the matt leak
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:37 PM on February 6, 2006