The studies you are citing are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT March 4, 2006 1:01 AM Subscribe
I'm glad to see Nancy Reagan is being productive these days.
posted by bardic at 1:13 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by bardic at 1:13 AM on March 4, 2006
A very quick Google search turned up this, which I'm sure is just the tip of the iceberg.
I've known plenty of people who have smoked plenty of pot. And while a handful of those people have turned out to be generally unambitious and unimpressive overall, I don't know a single one of them to be schizophrenic. I think you need to take a step back and gain some perspective on what these studies are really addressing, DirtyCreature - because I don't think the situation is quite as alarming as you're making it out to be.
posted by mullacc at 1:18 AM on March 4, 2006
I've known plenty of people who have smoked plenty of pot. And while a handful of those people have turned out to be generally unambitious and unimpressive overall, I don't know a single one of them to be schizophrenic. I think you need to take a step back and gain some perspective on what these studies are really addressing, DirtyCreature - because I don't think the situation is quite as alarming as you're making it out to be.
posted by mullacc at 1:18 AM on March 4, 2006
Gyan stated it perfectly here:
DirtyCreature : Yes and they make no mention of dosage in this conclusion.
They don't need to. They aren't classifying the risk by dosage. It's a pretty simple statement. This is what it means
---
Among 100 people with no history of cannabis use, 1 will eventually develop schizophrenia
Among 100 people with a history, 2 will eventually develop schizophrenia
---
It's saying the same thing as one of the papers you linked:
[Cannabis can double the risk of schizophrenia. Increasing but still controversial knowledge of the psychological effects of the drug]
Here's a study that takes frequency into account, and arrives at the same conclusion (1.6 to 1.8 times higher).
Which is to say that this, from DirtyCreature: I am deeply sorry that medical science offends you and hope your future children recover from their psychosis eventually. is the most ridiculous type of hyperbole.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:22 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
DirtyCreature : Yes and they make no mention of dosage in this conclusion.
They don't need to. They aren't classifying the risk by dosage. It's a pretty simple statement. This is what it means
---
Among 100 people with no history of cannabis use, 1 will eventually develop schizophrenia
Among 100 people with a history, 2 will eventually develop schizophrenia
---
It's saying the same thing as one of the papers you linked:
[Cannabis can double the risk of schizophrenia. Increasing but still controversial knowledge of the psychological effects of the drug]
Here's a study that takes frequency into account, and arrives at the same conclusion (1.6 to 1.8 times higher).
Which is to say that this, from DirtyCreature: I am deeply sorry that medical science offends you and hope your future children recover from their psychosis eventually. is the most ridiculous type of hyperbole.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:22 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I am deeply sorry that medical science offends you and hope your future children recover from their psychosis eventually.
I am deeply sorry that you're not clueful enough to understand the fact that the studies you're presenting do nothing to answer the question at hand.
The question does not ask for statistical information about health risks associated with marijuana use.
Pack up your soapbox. Save it for a thread were someone actually asks that question.
posted by loquacious at 1:22 AM on March 4, 2006
I am deeply sorry that you're not clueful enough to understand the fact that the studies you're presenting do nothing to answer the question at hand.
The question does not ask for statistical information about health risks associated with marijuana use.
Pack up your soapbox. Save it for a thread were someone actually asks that question.
posted by loquacious at 1:22 AM on March 4, 2006
because I don't think the situation is quite as alarming as you're making it out to be.
I'm not being alarmist. I'm just stating the facts. Some like loquacious on that thread didn't like to hear them.
I really can't be bothered arguing anymore with a bunch of silly, angry potheads about posting government-sanctioned medical references detailing the dangers of cannabis to the questioner's preteen children. And I never intended for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs.
Later.
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:28 AM on March 4, 2006
I'm not being alarmist. I'm just stating the facts. Some like loquacious on that thread didn't like to hear them.
I really can't be bothered arguing anymore with a bunch of silly, angry potheads about posting government-sanctioned medical references detailing the dangers of cannabis to the questioner's preteen children. And I never intended for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs.
Later.
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:28 AM on March 4, 2006
mullacc, the link is real but limited, and that's all I'm trying to tell DirtyCreature. In fact, this study should provide a definitive impression:
Carriers of the COMT valine158 allele were most likely to exhibit psychotic symptoms and to develop schizophreniform disorder if they used cannabis. Cannabis use had no such adverse influence on individuals with two copies of the methionine allele.
...
The results provide evidence that adolescent cannabis use, but not adult-onset use, is associated with later psychosis outcomes and that the COMT Val158Met polymorphism moderated the link between psychosis and adolescent-onset cannabis use, but not adult-onset cannabis use.
...
First, this study does not imply that cannabis poses a major risk to the public’s mental health, because the majority (92%) of cannabis users in this, as in other studies (Arseneault et al 2004), did not develop psychosis. The interaction between adolescent cannabis use and genotype suggests, however, that adolescence could be a sensitive period of neurobiological vulnerability to cannabis for some young people (Chambers et al 2003) and, if so, policy should discourage adolescents’ access to cannabis. Second, this study does not identify a major cause of schizophrenia. Val homozygotes who used cannabis characterized only one fifth of the schizophreniform cases in our cohort. This suggests that a historical rise in cannabis use would not necessarily produce an observable increase in the prevalence of psychosis, although it might be associated with earlier onset of psychotic disorders in recent cohorts (Di Maggio et al 2001; Veen et al 2004) or possibly with increases in subtle alterations in positive and negative psychotic experiences (Stefanis et al 2004).
posted by Gyan at 1:29 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Carriers of the COMT valine158 allele were most likely to exhibit psychotic symptoms and to develop schizophreniform disorder if they used cannabis. Cannabis use had no such adverse influence on individuals with two copies of the methionine allele.
...
The results provide evidence that adolescent cannabis use, but not adult-onset use, is associated with later psychosis outcomes and that the COMT Val158Met polymorphism moderated the link between psychosis and adolescent-onset cannabis use, but not adult-onset cannabis use.
...
First, this study does not imply that cannabis poses a major risk to the public’s mental health, because the majority (92%) of cannabis users in this, as in other studies (Arseneault et al 2004), did not develop psychosis. The interaction between adolescent cannabis use and genotype suggests, however, that adolescence could be a sensitive period of neurobiological vulnerability to cannabis for some young people (Chambers et al 2003) and, if so, policy should discourage adolescents’ access to cannabis. Second, this study does not identify a major cause of schizophrenia. Val homozygotes who used cannabis characterized only one fifth of the schizophreniform cases in our cohort. This suggests that a historical rise in cannabis use would not necessarily produce an observable increase in the prevalence of psychosis, although it might be associated with earlier onset of psychotic disorders in recent cohorts (Di Maggio et al 2001; Veen et al 2004) or possibly with increases in subtle alterations in positive and negative psychotic experiences (Stefanis et al 2004).
posted by Gyan at 1:29 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think DirtyCreature is a single white male, ultraconservative, and so far an excellent troll, who seems well experienced with MetaFilter for someone without any profile details. I'm surprised he hasn't been noted sooner. Look at his stuff on Abu Ghraib, it's priceless.
posted by tweak at 2:00 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tweak at 2:00 AM on March 4, 2006
heh, nevermind, I'm dyslexic, mis-read his user number. But still, NZ/Aussie troll. Good game.
posted by tweak at 2:01 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tweak at 2:01 AM on March 4, 2006
You're all very inconsiderate. She wanted to know the best way to go about calming her kids down about the subject, with as little lying, seeding of emotional issues down the road, etc as possible. Those who fed the troll polluted just as much as the troll himself. You knew it wasn't an answer in the askme box, yet you posted anyway.
Maybe I'm excessively cautious when handling askme threads, but I personally would be pretty upset to find a lot of noise and bickering to have to sort through in order to read what sincere replies were posted.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 2:02 AM on March 4, 2006
Maybe I'm excessively cautious when handling askme threads, but I personally would be pretty upset to find a lot of noise and bickering to have to sort through in order to read what sincere replies were posted.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 2:02 AM on March 4, 2006
Jesus fucking Christ.
The question asks what approach the parent should take to explaining the parent's take on pot versus the school's take on pot. Feel free to substitute pot with premarital sex or junk food.
DirtyCreature, please pay attention to this simple fact. The question was NOT: "Should I be shotgunning my preteen kids, and forcing them to take gravity bong hits before they try out for the track team and go in to do their SAT9's."
See that? No one's asking for the answers you're providing.
Stop acting so shocked that, after providing said answers, still NO ONE wants to hear them, because they're just not relevant. You may need a moment to process. I'll wait.
...
Not. Relevant.
The kids are not smoking. The parents are not encouraging the kids to smoke. The kids are not consuming of SECONDHAND marijuana either, especially, if at all, in quantity enough to bump up their schizo probability that extra tasty 1%.
Thank you, loquacious.
posted by disillusioned at 2:22 AM on March 4, 2006
I really can't be bothered arguing anymore with a bunch of silly, angry potheads about posting government-sanctioned medical references detailing the dangers of cannabis to the questioner's preteen children.That's fucking FANTASTIC, since NO ONE, INCLUDING THE QUESTION was asking you to be bothered.
The question asks what approach the parent should take to explaining the parent's take on pot versus the school's take on pot. Feel free to substitute pot with premarital sex or junk food.
DirtyCreature, please pay attention to this simple fact. The question was NOT: "Should I be shotgunning my preteen kids, and forcing them to take gravity bong hits before they try out for the track team and go in to do their SAT9's."
See that? No one's asking for the answers you're providing.
Stop acting so shocked that, after providing said answers, still NO ONE wants to hear them, because they're just not relevant. You may need a moment to process. I'll wait.
...
Not. Relevant.
The kids are not smoking. The parents are not encouraging the kids to smoke. The kids are not consuming of SECONDHAND marijuana either, especially, if at all, in quantity enough to bump up their schizo probability that extra tasty 1%.
Thank you, loquacious.
posted by disillusioned at 2:22 AM on March 4, 2006
I think DirtyCreature is a single white male, ultraconservative, and so far an excellent troll
I'm excellent? Why thank you. And thank you too for your many notable contributions too Mother Teresa.
Sadly though your demographic profile is way off. What does that tell you?
I personally would be pretty upset to find a lot of noise and bickering to have to sort through in order to read what sincere replies were posted
Sometimes people disagree. It happens. We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here. I am confident the poster is intelligent enough to sift out what is relevant to her/him and make his/her own decision.
Later. No.... seriously. Happy toking.
posted by DirtyCreature at 2:25 AM on March 4, 2006
I'm excellent? Why thank you. And thank you too for your many notable contributions too Mother Teresa.
Sadly though your demographic profile is way off. What does that tell you?
I personally would be pretty upset to find a lot of noise and bickering to have to sort through in order to read what sincere replies were posted
Sometimes people disagree. It happens. We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here. I am confident the poster is intelligent enough to sift out what is relevant to her/him and make his/her own decision.
Later. No.... seriously. Happy toking.
posted by DirtyCreature at 2:25 AM on March 4, 2006
DirtyCreature: did a patchouli-perfumed girl break your heart back in the day? Aww, poor thing :)
posted by tweak at 2:31 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tweak at 2:31 AM on March 4, 2006
Maybe DirtyCreature thinks that Anonymous is a Pretty buxom Caucasian sweety that needs to be put on the straight and narrow.
posted by tellurian at 4:20 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tellurian at 4:20 AM on March 4, 2006
Ahhh...I seem to recall that thread tellurian. But of course DirtyCreature isn't here to win friends.
posted by peacay at 4:37 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by peacay at 4:37 AM on March 4, 2006
Well okay I'm sorry to have brought that up. Come talk cricket DirtyCreature.
posted by tellurian at 5:01 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tellurian at 5:01 AM on March 4, 2006
Can we please just get all the stuff that doesn't answer the question deleted? Sigh... This is depressing. I've flagged and I'm moving on.
posted by lalalana at 5:45 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by lalalana at 5:45 AM on March 4, 2006
Christ, people, just because you disagree with a point of view doesn't mean you drag him into Metatalk.
All the studies Dirty Creature linked to are hosted at a .gov. That means that it's pretty much fair game for verbatim synthesis into a ten-year-old's health class. The question was all about narrowing the gap between the father's seemingly uneventful occasional use and the force-fed school propaganda.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:48 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
All the studies Dirty Creature linked to are hosted at a .gov. That means that it's pretty much fair game for verbatim synthesis into a ten-year-old's health class. The question was all about narrowing the gap between the father's seemingly uneventful occasional use and the force-fed school propaganda.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:48 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Methinks DirtyCreature doth protest too much...
posted by Operation Afterglow at 5:54 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by Operation Afterglow at 5:54 AM on March 4, 2006
Come talk cricket DirtyCreature.
Oh, God, no. The last time we did that he started foaming at the mouth and ranting about the Amritsar massacre.
Seriously.
posted by blag at 5:57 AM on March 4, 2006
Oh, God, no. The last time we did that he started foaming at the mouth and ranting about the Amritsar massacre.
Seriously.
posted by blag at 5:57 AM on March 4, 2006
Christ, people, just because you disagree with a point of view doesn't mean you drag him into Metatalk.
you new here?
posted by andrew cooke at 6:11 AM on March 4, 2006
you new here?
posted by andrew cooke at 6:11 AM on March 4, 2006
DirtyCreature: The issue here is that you've posted "answers" to a question that wasn't asked! The asker wasn't asking what would happen if his kids smoked, they were asking about the proper course of action against government brainwashing. Your statistics and links, even though they MIGHT be the truth (although the validity of these government trials is known to be incorrect), don't answer the question asked. It's not a matter of whether the stats are correct. It's a matter of spamming the thread with pointless information that doesn't serve to answer the question asked. End of discussion.
If you had a point to make with your links, maybe phrasing it as, "Based on these government-hosted links, your children might think you will develop schizophrenia" would have been a better approach. But from what I'm seeing, you are taking it as a chance to push your personal viewpoint of, "Marijuana is bad and will cause you to go insane." AskMe isn't a political playground. Don't push your agenda on it.
posted by Meagan at 6:17 AM on March 4, 2006
If you had a point to make with your links, maybe phrasing it as, "Based on these government-hosted links, your children might think you will develop schizophrenia" would have been a better approach. But from what I'm seeing, you are taking it as a chance to push your personal viewpoint of, "Marijuana is bad and will cause you to go insane." AskMe isn't a political playground. Don't push your agenda on it.
posted by Meagan at 6:17 AM on March 4, 2006
Can we please just get all the stuff that doesn't answer the question deleted?
I removed the most off-topic comments. DirtyCreature, you're welcome to state your opinion and cite sources if they address the question, but you need to not turn someone else's AskMe question into a debate about your particular set of issues. That's what MetaTalk is for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:17 AM on March 4, 2006
I removed the most off-topic comments. DirtyCreature, you're welcome to state your opinion and cite sources if they address the question, but you need to not turn someone else's AskMe question into a debate about your particular set of issues. That's what MetaTalk is for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:17 AM on March 4, 2006
DirtyCreature writes "We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here."
You only make the All star team if your a member of the ca
posted by Mitheral at 8:21 AM on March 4, 2006
You only make the All star team if your a member of the ca
posted by Mitheral at 8:21 AM on March 4, 2006
Mitheral writes "You only make the All star team if your a member of the ca"
cabal? carnivore family? cantering recidivists? cambrian fossils? cauterized chancres?
posted by peacay at 8:33 AM on March 4, 2006
cabal? carnivore family? cantering recidivists? cambrian fossils? cauterized chancres?
posted by peacay at 8:33 AM on March 4, 2006
California Raisins.
posted by cillit bang at 8:36 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by cillit bang at 8:36 AM on March 4, 2006
herrdoktor, were you serious? If you were, tell me; I can't find this journal ... what's the full name? Is it available online? Thanks. If you were joking, here's my preemptive embarassement for being fooled, right before this period.
posted by louigi at 8:41 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by louigi at 8:41 AM on March 4, 2006
Jess also deleted my comment, which was fair. I will repost it here:
DirtyCreature has been wrong about a variety of subjects, the most delicious one being right here. He frequently presents researchers as being experts in certain fields when they are in fact totally unqualified. Finally, he invests in schemes designed to defraud the U.S. government and its citizens. He has no morals and no credibility.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:41 AM on March 4, 2006
DirtyCreature has been wrong about a variety of subjects, the most delicious one being right here. He frequently presents researchers as being experts in certain fields when they are in fact totally unqualified. Finally, he invests in schemes designed to defraud the U.S. government and its citizens. He has no morals and no credibility.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:41 AM on March 4, 2006
All I know is that when I smoke the doob the big angry eye that follows me goes away for a while.
He's back again. God, he's staring at me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:53 AM on March 4, 2006 [4 favorites]
He's back again. God, he's staring at me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:53 AM on March 4, 2006 [4 favorites]
Hmm. While I tend to agree that pot is not a good this, I am convinced that DirtyCreature is, in fact, a giant prick.
posted by JeffK at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by JeffK at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2006
I removed the most off-topic comments.
You deleted them? You DELETED them? Well I hope you are REAL proud of yourself. Think about what you just did. MY particular set of issues? I have NO particular set of issues. I don't give a damn what drugs you do. I was quoting SCIENCE. Remember those classes? I was trying to warn the poster of the genuine risks to his/her children which he/she simply hadn't even considered as relevant in his/her question.
Don't worry. I don't really blame you. You are just a slave to the whims of a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
Note : There are smart people on this place. Perhaps even the majority. But many of the above list of names aren't included. But I guess that's why you all dropped out of the science classes eventually and formed your little support groups before reality set in right?
Feel free to delete my account too. Yes really. Completely calm and rational. Means very little to me. I don't want to get stalked by the likes of optimus chimp anymore who emails me MONTHS after an offbeat post to gloat about a prediction someone in the article I posted made - must have had this date in his diary. What a truly sick deluded individual. (To those who have emailed me asking about this incident, I have included full headers of his email in my response)
Bye now.
posted by DirtyCreature at 8:58 AM on March 4, 2006 [44 favorites]
You deleted them? You DELETED them? Well I hope you are REAL proud of yourself. Think about what you just did. MY particular set of issues? I have NO particular set of issues. I don't give a damn what drugs you do. I was quoting SCIENCE. Remember those classes? I was trying to warn the poster of the genuine risks to his/her children which he/she simply hadn't even considered as relevant in his/her question.
Don't worry. I don't really blame you. You are just a slave to the whims of a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
Note : There are smart people on this place. Perhaps even the majority. But many of the above list of names aren't included. But I guess that's why you all dropped out of the science classes eventually and formed your little support groups before reality set in right?
Feel free to delete my account too. Yes really. Completely calm and rational. Means very little to me. I don't want to get stalked by the likes of optimus chimp anymore who emails me MONTHS after an offbeat post to gloat about a prediction someone in the article I posted made - must have had this date in his diary. What a truly sick deluded individual. (To those who have emailed me asking about this incident, I have included full headers of his email in my response)
Bye now.
posted by DirtyCreature at 8:58 AM on March 4, 2006 [44 favorites]
Best. Flameout. Ever.
posted by JeffK at 9:02 AM on March 4, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by JeffK at 9:02 AM on March 4, 2006 [2 favorites]
Bye!
posted by Evstar at 9:03 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Evstar at 9:03 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
DirtyCreature, you still don't seem to understand that yours and other commented were deleted (Deleted?? Believe it!) because they were way off fucking topic.
You're an obstinate prick. Good riddance.
posted by Evstar at 9:05 AM on March 4, 2006
You're an obstinate prick. Good riddance.
posted by Evstar at 9:05 AM on March 4, 2006
er... comments. Not commented.
I must be high.
posted by Evstar at 9:06 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I must be high.
posted by Evstar at 9:06 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
peacay writes "Mitheral writes
'You only make the All star team if your a member of the ca'
"cabal?"
I've said too much.
posted by Mitheral at 9:06 AM on March 4, 2006
'You only make the All star team if your a member of the ca'"cabal?"
I've said too much.
posted by Mitheral at 9:06 AM on March 4, 2006
I'm so furious I'm leaving too!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:07 AM on March 4, 2006 [4 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:07 AM on March 4, 2006 [4 favorites]
I'm back!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:07 AM on March 4, 2006 [8 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:07 AM on March 4, 2006 [8 favorites]
(To those who have emailed me asking about this incident, I have included full headers of his email in my response)
I don't understand how anyone could email you about the details of a comment that you were in the middle of writing.
But in case you're not full of shit - which I doubt - I'd be happy to supply the same to anyone who wants them. Incidentally, I hope you sold all those shares of SNFX.PK; it's not doing too well.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:13 AM on March 4, 2006
I don't understand how anyone could email you about the details of a comment that you were in the middle of writing.
But in case you're not full of shit - which I doubt - I'd be happy to supply the same to anyone who wants them. Incidentally, I hope you sold all those shares of SNFX.PK; it's not doing too well.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:13 AM on March 4, 2006
You're just going to have to wait until Passover, JeffK. You know that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:14 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:14 AM on March 4, 2006
That guy could have really used a nice doobie. Chill him out a little.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I used my weekly askmefi question yesterday, but please, what's a divorce victim lackie?
posted by matteo at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by matteo at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006
matteo wins the award for Best Use of Goya In A MetaTalk Thread. A trophy needs to be made.
posted by tweak at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by tweak at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2006
Who is in this 'central daisychain' of which he speakith?
posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on March 4, 2006
No matter how much of a lunatic User X proves himself to be, emailing him privately to argue about a months-old thread is incredibly lame. If you've got something to say about a thread, post it in the thread; and if the thread's closed, maybe it's time to move on with your life.
posted by cribcage at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by cribcage at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2006
"Feel free to delete my account too. Yes really."
Oh, thank God. I don't really have an opinion on the matter of whether or not pot is harmful. Frankly, I don't really care. But I do have an opinion on people lecturing a questioner on their morality or assumptions in AskMe when they're supposed to be answering a question. Answer the question. Or be quiet. Is this complicated? No, it is not complicated.
Also—and I hope everyone takes careful of note of this—note how he so quickly stereotyped thosed with whom he disagreed on the basis of simpleminded assumptions and then made an ad hominem argument. Almost everyone here does this all the time—I did it last night. When we disagree, there is something in us (or many of us) that seems to want to argue against an opponent's character and not their assertions or arguments. I can only imagine how the world would improve if people weren't this way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2006
Oh, thank God. I don't really have an opinion on the matter of whether or not pot is harmful. Frankly, I don't really care. But I do have an opinion on people lecturing a questioner on their morality or assumptions in AskMe when they're supposed to be answering a question. Answer the question. Or be quiet. Is this complicated? No, it is not complicated.
Also—and I hope everyone takes careful of note of this—note how he so quickly stereotyped thosed with whom he disagreed on the basis of simpleminded assumptions and then made an ad hominem argument. Almost everyone here does this all the time—I did it last night. When we disagree, there is something in us (or many of us) that seems to want to argue against an opponent's character and not their assertions or arguments. I can only imagine how the world would improve if people weren't this way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:44 AM on March 4, 2006
MetaFilter: You deleted them? You DELETED them? Well I hope you are REAL proud of yourself. Think about what you just did.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by exlotuseater at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I was quoting SCIENCE.
He blinded us with science. (SCIENCE!)
Fortunately, I'm also a self-absorbed, potsmoking, diabetic victim lackey.
But who you calling 20-something, you young fuck?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
He blinded us with science. (SCIENCE!)
Fortunately, I'm also a self-absorbed, potsmoking, diabetic victim lackey.
But who you calling 20-something, you young fuck?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:53 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
"I was quoting SCIENCE." made me think of this book, so thanks for reminding me that I haven't read it in a while and need to find a new copy.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:01 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:01 AM on March 4, 2006
No matter how much of a lunatic User X proves himself to be, emailing him privately to argue about a months-old thread is incredibly lame.
posted by cribcage at 9:42 AM PST on March 4
It was eight words including the subject line. C'est la vie.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by cribcage at 9:42 AM PST on March 4
It was eight words including the subject line. C'est la vie.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:15 AM on March 4, 2006
herrdoktor, were you serious? If you were, tell me; I can't find this journal ... what's the full name? Is it available online? Thanks. If you were joking, here's my preemptive embarassement for being fooled, right before this period.
Nah, it's a Neal Stephenson reference, at least as far as I can tell. Shaftoe, B=Bobby Shaftoe, from Cryptonomicon.
Do I get a nerd gold star for this one?
posted by hoboynow at 10:32 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Nah, it's a Neal Stephenson reference, at least as far as I can tell. Shaftoe, B=Bobby Shaftoe, from Cryptonomicon.
Do I get a nerd gold star for this one?
posted by hoboynow at 10:32 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
At first I thought DirtyCreature's last comment was an over-the-top mockery of him. Then I saw it was actually his own and... wow. I haven't laughed so hard in ages.
...which almost - but not quite - makes up for the times I felt like screaming "shut UP already!" after reading any of his other "comments".
posted by stefanie at 10:55 AM on March 4, 2006
...which almost - but not quite - makes up for the times I felt like screaming "shut UP already!" after reading any of his other "comments".
posted by stefanie at 10:55 AM on March 4, 2006
heh, that was a moderately good flameout. It was quick, full of the infamous "I gotta go now/I'm back" behavior, a total misunderstanding of what was going on, misunderstanding of the facts they put forth (as mentioned elsewhere a 1% increase from 1 out of 100 is not 2 but 1.01 out of 100). Self righteousness, ascribing universal behavior to a group of people...
The flameout was missing threats of bodily harm, either to self or others, not enough swearing and not enough scatological references.
I give it a B/B+
posted by edgeways at 11:09 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
The flameout was missing threats of bodily harm, either to self or others, not enough swearing and not enough scatological references.
I give it a B/B+
posted by edgeways at 11:09 AM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I have to agree edgeways, a good flameout but no where near strong enough to put DC onto the medal podium.
Now I have to get back to my bong thank you.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2006
Now I have to get back to my bong thank you.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2006
Damn, I go away for a few days and miss a flame-out. Loving his posting history. In AskMetafilter. Dude, if I wasn't so unmotivated and schizophrenic, I'd dig up a bunch of articles on the "negative effects of Prozac on adolescents".
posted by muddgirl at 11:30 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by muddgirl at 11:30 AM on March 4, 2006
That's a real knee-slapper.
posted by puke & cry at 11:42 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 11:42 AM on March 4, 2006
Come on, guys. He's got a lot of time on his hands now, what with "the few hundred thousand [he] made from those "scam" stocks [I] skilfully identified."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:58 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:58 AM on March 4, 2006
I give it a B/B+
Now, that's not really fair. In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but we haven't had a decent flameout in ages, and I think we have to grade on the curve here. At least an A-.
But next time, if you're going to flame out, use the chainsaw. That's why Matt provides it.
posted by languagehat at 12:30 PM on March 4, 2006
Now, that's not really fair. In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but we haven't had a decent flameout in ages, and I think we have to grade on the curve here. At least an A-.
But next time, if you're going to flame out, use the chainsaw. That's why Matt provides it.
posted by languagehat at 12:30 PM on March 4, 2006
I do have an opinion on people lecturing a questioner on their morality or assumptions in AskMe when they're supposed to be answering a question. Answer the question. Or be quiet.
Amen.
posted by Gator at 12:31 PM on March 4, 2006
Amen.
posted by Gator at 12:31 PM on March 4, 2006
I searched MeTa for "chainsaw" and all I found was languagehat making references to it. What does this mean?
posted by trey at 12:37 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by trey at 12:37 PM on March 4, 2006
If one more person asks about the chainsaw, I may have to cut off my right hand.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:43 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:43 PM on March 4, 2006
I could tell you how I know son_of_minya used a chainsaw, but then you'd have to cut your right hand off.
posted by languagehat at 12:49 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by languagehat at 12:49 PM on March 4, 2006
But Languagehat, under IFOA (International Flame-Out Assoc) rules, he/she needs at least 5 comments in the actual flame out thread. 4 comments is ok by North American standards, but not for Olympic or International competition.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 12:57 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 12:57 PM on March 4, 2006
I was going to register SCIENCE! as my first sock-puppet, but that's only about $3.46 worth of funny, not $5.00.
posted by bardic at 12:58 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by bardic at 12:58 PM on March 4, 2006
4 comments is ok by North American standards, but not for Olympic or International competition.
Dammit, I try not to be a parochial American, but life keeps tripping me up.
*awaits internationally recognized flameout*
posted by languagehat at 12:59 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Dammit, I try not to be a parochial American, but life keeps tripping me up.
*awaits internationally recognized flameout*
posted by languagehat at 12:59 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I've been meaning to flame out for awhile. How does this work? Will this comment count towards my total, or do you only start counting after I say something provocative? So many rules...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:02 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:02 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
It's Raining Florence Henderson, first you say something provacative, then someone else has to respond to you, then you can say something more provacative, then they respond, and pray for escalation. [It helps if you have a willing accomplice already arranged]. Use phrases like "yeah, and so did Hitler!!!111", "I XXXXX'ed your mother!", and "Shock us both with electricity [sic] until X admits his lies!!!". "I'm crazy!". You know.
Then, send that person ranting incoherent emails, and have them post them here.
Then contact me and I will post a call-out featuring you, on your behalf, and then we can all start yelling and being mean.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:07 PM on March 4, 2006
Then, send that person ranting incoherent emails, and have them post them here.
Then contact me and I will post a call-out featuring you, on your behalf, and then we can all start yelling and being mean.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:07 PM on March 4, 2006
I've flamed out more times than I can count, but they're always so short lived that they barely get noticed. I'm tired of it all and think I should take a break for a little while.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:08 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:08 PM on March 4, 2006
I'm back again!
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:10 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:10 PM on March 4, 2006
matteo wins the award for Best Use of Goya In A MetaTalk Thread. A trophy needs to be made.
Someone tried that already. Didn't work out so good. (NSFW/eyes)
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:10 PM on March 4, 2006
Someone tried that already. Didn't work out so good. (NSFW/eyes)
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:10 PM on March 4, 2006
GAH! Sorry, nevermind nevermind nevermind. I read that as goyim or something.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:12 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:12 PM on March 4, 2006
That's just not right.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:13 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:13 PM on March 4, 2006
Holy shit. As links based on misreadings go, that was masterful.
Now I must go pour acid in my eyes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:15 PM on March 4, 2006
Now I must go pour acid in my eyes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:15 PM on March 4, 2006
Flaming out sounds like too much work. I guess I'll just have to go back to quietly despising everybody.
Any ideas what I can do with this bloody, severed hand?
posted by Pot at 1:42 PM on March 4, 2006
Any ideas what I can do with this bloody, severed hand?
posted by Pot at 1:42 PM on March 4, 2006
Any ideas what I can do with this bloody, severed hand?
Kettle could boil it.
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2006
Kettle could boil it.
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2006
Hey, fuck you, Pot! I was next in line for the flameout!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2006
Whew! Pot's right. Too much work. I need a beer.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on March 4, 2006
Sometimes people disagree. It happens. We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here. I am confident the poster is intelligent enough to sift out what is relevant to her/him and make his/her own decision.
Except the whole point of AskMe is that you don't have sift through tons of garbage, which is exactly what you were posting.
posted by delmoi at 1:52 PM on March 4, 2006
Except the whole point of AskMe is that you don't have sift through tons of garbage, which is exactly what you were posting.
posted by delmoi at 1:52 PM on March 4, 2006
I hope you sold all those shares of SNFX.PK
Ah, good thing this thread came along or I'd never have remembered to check up on Sniffex, the funniest publically traded company ever. I see they're still putting out the press releases.
“Sniffex, Inc. is a very active company in the Homeland Security arena. Our stock gets tremendous attention. There are those people, however, who could benefit from our stock going down in price," stated Paul Johnson president of Sniffex Inc. "We believe they are circulating false rumors about Sniffex."
posted by sfenders at 2:06 PM on March 4, 2006
Ah, good thing this thread came along or I'd never have remembered to check up on Sniffex, the funniest publically traded company ever. I see they're still putting out the press releases.
“Sniffex, Inc. is a very active company in the Homeland Security arena. Our stock gets tremendous attention. There are those people, however, who could benefit from our stock going down in price," stated Paul Johnson president of Sniffex Inc. "We believe they are circulating false rumors about Sniffex."
posted by sfenders at 2:06 PM on March 4, 2006
Can I have his member number?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:14 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:14 PM on March 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
man, what a douchebag. SCIENCE! I'm going to yell that everytime I think someone is on the verge of a flameout. fucking classic.
posted by shmegegge at 2:15 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 2:15 PM on March 4, 2006
MetaFilter: Just a slave to the whims of a miniscule minority.
posted by Duncan at 2:19 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Duncan at 2:19 PM on March 4, 2006
I don't know, I like a good flameout as much as the next guy, but this hardly made it for me. Grading on the curve or not, I think even a B is generous.
posted by OmieWise at 2:21 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 2:21 PM on March 4, 2006
Yeah -- like George Constanza he even fails at failing; sucks at sucking.
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on March 4, 2006
damn, he already flamed out before I could get my jab in.
What a tool.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on March 4, 2006
What a tool.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on March 4, 2006
Any bets on how long before Dirty Creature re-surfaces?
MetaFilter: more addictive than pot.
posted by Cranberry at 3:04 PM on March 4, 2006
MetaFilter: more addictive than pot.
posted by Cranberry at 3:04 PM on March 4, 2006
See, this whole thing just reinforces, in my mind anyway, why we as a country need to make marijuana a decriminalized substance, such as alcohol or tobacco. Then we don't have kids traumatized by their parents' pot use and the substance can be sold in stores, giving the gummint a nice healthy profit!
posted by Lynsey at 3:07 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Lynsey at 3:07 PM on March 4, 2006
I agree. B flameout, tops. It's length helped make it enjoyable for me. I read the first paragraph, thought it was sarcastic, kept reading, and realized it wasn't. That's the best part.
posted by graventy at 3:07 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by graventy at 3:07 PM on March 4, 2006
OK, would it be (sin)taxed at the same level?
Heh, will the potsmokers be too laidback to complain?
posted by Cranberry at 3:09 PM on March 4, 2006
Heh, will the potsmokers be too laidback to complain?
posted by Cranberry at 3:09 PM on March 4, 2006
A+++++ flameout, would read again!
Damn hippies!
MetaFilter: a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies
*bounces up and down with excitement*
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:39 PM on March 4, 2006
Damn hippies!
MetaFilter: a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies
*bounces up and down with excitement*
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:39 PM on March 4, 2006
It wasn't a long flame-out but so many catch-phrases!
You deleted them? You DELETED them? Well I hope you are REAL proud of yourself. Think about what you just did.
I was quoting SCIENCE.
You are just a slave to the whims of a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here.
I'll remember it fondly [and give it an A].
posted by meech at 7:47 PM on March 4, 2006
You deleted them? You DELETED them? Well I hope you are REAL proud of yourself. Think about what you just did.
I was quoting SCIENCE.
You are just a slave to the whims of a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here.
I'll remember it fondly [and give it an A].
posted by meech at 7:47 PM on March 4, 2006
As a noted scientist, I was a bit surprised when she blinded me with science.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:06 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:06 PM on March 4, 2006
a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, potsmoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
Woo-Hoo!! I'm number 20!! In your face quonsar!
posted by Balisong at 8:12 PM on March 4, 2006
Woo-Hoo!! I'm number 20!! In your face quonsar!
posted by Balisong at 8:12 PM on March 4, 2006
a miniscule minority of 20 something self-absorbed, pot smoking, divorce victim lackies who *think* they form the central daisychain at this place.
Woo-Hoo!! I'm number 20!! In your face quonsar!
I don't know what's worse, the fact that I'm on the list, or the fact that five or six months ago, I wasn't, even though I signed up in 2001...
posted by delmoi at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2006
Woo-Hoo!! I'm number 20!! In your face quonsar!
I don't know what's worse, the fact that I'm on the list, or the fact that five or six months ago, I wasn't, even though I signed up in 2001...
posted by delmoi at 10:45 PM on March 4, 2006
delmoi, you're only on the list because you divide your comments into 3 comment long consecutive strings. CHEATER!
posted by shmegegge at 11:11 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 11:11 PM on March 4, 2006
seriously. mefi contribution index superstardom, here I come!
posted by shmegegge at 11:12 PM on March 4, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 11:12 PM on March 4, 2006
you need to not turn someone else's AskMe question into a debate about your particular set of issues. That's what MetaTalk is for
How does this work, exactly? Do I post what I believe to be my particular set of issues, and wait for someone to refute them, which is to say, prove that I have an entirely different set of issues?
I'm new here, and just trying to get a feel for the rules.
posted by dhartung at 12:18 AM on March 5, 2006
How does this work, exactly? Do I post what I believe to be my particular set of issues, and wait for someone to refute them, which is to say, prove that I have an entirely different set of issues?
I'm new here, and just trying to get a feel for the rules.
posted by dhartung at 12:18 AM on March 5, 2006
Feel free to delete my account too. Yes really.
so, did it happen? quick, the matt signal!
posted by triv at 3:58 AM on March 5, 2006
so, did it happen? quick, the matt signal!
posted by triv at 3:58 AM on March 5, 2006
triv writes "so, did it happen? quick, the matt signal!"
posted by Mitheral at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2006
posted by Mitheral at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2006
I'm saving that graphic, astro zombie. I'm sure it will come in handy somewhere.
posted by puke & cry at 10:26 AM on March 5, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 10:26 AM on March 5, 2006
As a 30-something, married, undivorced, non-pot-smoking guy, I have to say:
This was a great flameout. Short, but sweet. Kinda reminded me of the "You see! You see! Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!" bit from Plan 9 from Outer Space.
posted by Bugbread at 8:01 PM on March 5, 2006
This was a great flameout. Short, but sweet. Kinda reminded me of the "You see! You see! Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!" bit from Plan 9 from Outer Space.
posted by Bugbread at 8:01 PM on March 5, 2006
I'm definately not never coming back to this thread.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:41 PM on March 5, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 8:41 PM on March 5, 2006
I was quoting SCIENCE.
Once again, good 'ol MetaTalk comes up with the goods.
posted by Blip at 6:47 AM on March 6, 2006
Once again, good 'ol MetaTalk comes up with the goods.
posted by Blip at 6:47 AM on March 6, 2006
This guy is clearly too high-strung to be here on Metafilter. I think he does need to reconsider participation here if he is going to get that personally involved in it.
That being said, I think he has a point about how lame the Optimus Chyme e-mails are. I finally blocked his e-mail account after receiving pointless short insulting e-mails from him. That guy needs a serious lesson on how to behave socially and not hold petty grudges.
posted by dios at 10:47 AM on March 6, 2006
That being said, I think he has a point about how lame the Optimus Chyme e-mails are. I finally blocked his e-mail account after receiving pointless short insulting e-mails from him. That guy needs a serious lesson on how to behave socially and not hold petty grudges.
posted by dios at 10:47 AM on March 6, 2006
And what better way to condemn petty grudges than to bitch about someone who hasn't emailed you in months?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:49 AM on March 6, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:49 AM on March 6, 2006
There may yet be time in this thread for another flameout!
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2006
I'm new here, and just trying to get a feel for the rules. - dhartung, user #654, member since: March 25, 2000
posted by raedyn at 12:02 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by raedyn at 12:02 PM on March 6, 2006
Seems I am not the only one getting harassing emails from Optimus Chyme. I received numerous emails from various people who have been privately attacked by this sick pathetic creep.
I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:03 PM on March 6, 2006
I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts.
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:03 PM on March 6, 2006
*grabs popcorn, anticipates Astro Zombie's prediction coming to fruition*
posted by raedyn at 12:03 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by raedyn at 12:03 PM on March 6, 2006
Funny, I've had a number of e-mail exchanges with Optimus and found him prickly but reasonable and actually quite engaging. Of course, I treated him respectfully myself. YMMV.
posted by languagehat at 12:10 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by languagehat at 12:10 PM on March 6, 2006
DirtyCreature writes "I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts."
Awesome. Good thing your account wasn't deleted!
posted by OmieWise at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2006
Awesome. Good thing your account wasn't deleted!
posted by OmieWise at 12:11 PM on March 6, 2006
I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings.
Creature, Dirty. "Internet: Serious Business." Annals of Who Gives a Fuck, Vol II, pp. 33-37.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:15 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Creature, Dirty. "Internet: Serious Business." Annals of Who Gives a Fuck, Vol II, pp. 33-37.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:15 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
This guy is clearly too high-strung to be here on Metafilter.
Yah. He needs to toke up, mellow out!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:19 PM on March 6, 2006
Yah. He needs to toke up, mellow out!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:19 PM on March 6, 2006
Optimus Chyme, you claim to be a lawyer (although you seem to be struggling with rental contracts). Well you might want to do some reading about what your home state says about the internet harassment you're propagating. Wouldn't want to damage your law school prospects....
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:23 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:23 PM on March 6, 2006
Where are pot and kettle:
posted by OmieWise at 12:31 PM on March 6, 2006
A. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:DirtyCreature writes "I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts."
4. Surveils or causes another person to surveil a person for no legitimate purpose.
posted by OmieWise at 12:31 PM on March 6, 2006
I've had a number of e-mail exchanges with Optimus and found him prickly but reasonable
that's been my impression too, most of the time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:32 PM on March 6, 2006
that's been my impression too, most of the time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:32 PM on March 6, 2006
If you actually think I'm claiming to be a lawyer when you see this
Name: Optomo Chymeson, Esq.
Homepage URL: http://www.butts-lol.info
Email: OptimusChyme at gmail dot com
Location: lawyerville
Latitude/Longitude: 33.276539, -112.18717
Occupation: Uh I am a lawyer this is proof that I am a lawyer
Gender: lawyer
then you are actually dumber than I thought and I wish you the very best in your suit against me.
Here are my emails in full, for everyone's edification.
1) "Okay, level with me; why are you defending a technology that has no basis in science? Do you have a financial interest in Sniffex or do you otherwise profit from these kinds of ventures or what? Because any rational person can see that the Sniffex technology is baseless.
I can't imagine why you're defending this company after seeing the evidence of its officers' past financial hanky-panky."
2) "subject: hey you know that earthquake body: it didn't happen"
3) "uh dude SNFX is down like 2 bucks
besides i don't give a shit whether or not you made money; i'm just happy you know as well as i do that it's a scam :)"
So, please, call one of my associates in lawyerville and make it happen.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Name: Optomo Chymeson, Esq.
Homepage URL: http://www.butts-lol.info
Email: OptimusChyme at gmail dot com
Location: lawyerville
Latitude/Longitude: 33.276539, -112.18717
Occupation: Uh I am a lawyer this is proof that I am a lawyer
Gender: lawyer
then you are actually dumber than I thought and I wish you the very best in your suit against me.
Here are my emails in full, for everyone's edification.
1) "Okay, level with me; why are you defending a technology that has no basis in science? Do you have a financial interest in Sniffex or do you otherwise profit from these kinds of ventures or what? Because any rational person can see that the Sniffex technology is baseless.
I can't imagine why you're defending this company after seeing the evidence of its officers' past financial hanky-panky."
2) "subject: hey you know that earthquake body: it didn't happen"
3) "uh dude SNFX is down like 2 bucks
besides i don't give a shit whether or not you made money; i'm just happy you know as well as i do that it's a scam :)"
So, please, call one of my associates in lawyerville and make it happen.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Is Lawyerville anywhere near Margarittaville? 'Cause I've got a hella hangover, and I'm lookin' for a hair o' the dog! Or maybe I should just roll a fattie, instead.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:38 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:38 PM on March 6, 2006
Oooo, oooo, can I track OC's posts, too?? I'm a great tracker!
posted by thanotopsis at 12:39 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by thanotopsis at 12:39 PM on March 6, 2006
We are not all wearing Team Metafilter Allstars jerseys here
Wait... there are jerseys available? I must have missed that memo. I want one
posted by srw12 at 12:39 PM on March 6, 2006
Wait... there are jerseys available? I must have missed that memo. I want one
posted by srw12 at 12:39 PM on March 6, 2006
shit, dirtycreature has now pulled an Alex_Reynolds and come back to a thread he insisted he wasn't going to participate in anymore, and he comes BEARING GRUDGES.
w00t! gettin' me some popcorn.
dirtycreature, I sincerely hope you write a thesis of at least 80 pages on how you don't like Optimus_Chyme. Shit, you might as well spend every waking hour researching his place of employment and write scandalous emails to his boss about his behavior here. I mean, if you're going to be the villain in this drama, you might as well play it to the extreme. Maybe kill his bunny rabbit, too.
posted by shmegegge at 12:46 PM on March 6, 2006
w00t! gettin' me some popcorn.
dirtycreature, I sincerely hope you write a thesis of at least 80 pages on how you don't like Optimus_Chyme. Shit, you might as well spend every waking hour researching his place of employment and write scandalous emails to his boss about his behavior here. I mean, if you're going to be the villain in this drama, you might as well play it to the extreme. Maybe kill his bunny rabbit, too.
posted by shmegegge at 12:46 PM on March 6, 2006
Holy crap this is the greatest thread ever.
I want to see dios and optimus fight more.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:55 PM on March 6, 2006
I want to see dios and optimus fight more.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:55 PM on March 6, 2006
does anybody remember NickDouglas?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:57 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:57 PM on March 6, 2006
In all honesty, DC, I think that you have serious issues to deal with. You claim to have made hundreds of thousands of dollars from spam-promoted stocks. If you have, then there's no reason to flip out over some poor dude giving you a hard time about pseudoscience. And if you haven't, then you're a pathological liar and you need help. I will not encourage or bait you any further.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:59 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:59 PM on March 6, 2006
DirtyCreature's like Glenn Close rising from the bathtub in Fatal Attraction. This is now officially fucking awesome.
posted by scody at 1:00 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by scody at 1:00 PM on March 6, 2006
Annals of Who Gives a Fuck, Vol II, pp. 33-37.
I'm guessing they don't have an ombudsman.
posted by yerfatma at 1:18 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing they don't have an ombudsman.
posted by yerfatma at 1:18 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Seems I am not the only one getting harassing emails from Optimus Chyme. I received numerous emails from various people who have been privately attacked by this sick pathetic creep.
I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts.
Jesus fucking Christ in a titty bar!
Grow a hide. And a backbone.
I never get emails from Optimus Chyme. *sniff*
posted by loquacious at 1:22 PM on March 6, 2006
I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings. Several people are now tracking his posts.
Jesus fucking Christ in a titty bar!
Grow a hide. And a backbone.
I never get emails from Optimus Chyme. *sniff*
posted by loquacious at 1:22 PM on March 6, 2006
Ha! Fantastic:
posted by blag at 1:54 PM on March 6, 2006
DirtyCreature: I plan to do some research about this individual and publish my findings.From the moment you set eyes upon their first comment, there are some members who you just know are eventually going to flip out. Bravo, dear chap. Bravo.
*goes away, reads profile*
DirtyCreature: So... Lawyer, eh?
Optimus Chyme: Um, no.
posted by blag at 1:54 PM on March 6, 2006
He's living la meta loco.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on March 6, 2006
srw12: Wait... there are jerseys available? I must have missed that memo. I want one
*cough*
posted by blag at 1:57 PM on March 6, 2006
*cough*
posted by blag at 1:57 PM on March 6, 2006
Well you might want to do some reading about what your home state says about the internet harassment you're propagating.
Optimus, I think I heard a knock at your door....
posted by S.C. at 3:14 PM on March 6, 2006
Optimus, I think I heard a knock at your door....
posted by S.C. at 3:14 PM on March 6, 2006
Sending snarky or outright hostile emails to other mefites because you disagree in a thread is pretty damn childish. I can't recall, but I imagine I've done it one or twice. But it sounds like OC makes a habit of it, regardless of how big of a nutcase DirtyCreature is.
Friendly or polite, substantial emails are fine, as long as you haven't been told they're not; but dashing off an irate or insulting email as the result of a mefi conflict signals—to me, anyway—that the emailer is edging toward net crankism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:03 PM on March 6, 2006
Friendly or polite, substantial emails are fine, as long as you haven't been told they're not; but dashing off an irate or insulting email as the result of a mefi conflict signals—to me, anyway—that the emailer is edging toward net crankism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:03 PM on March 6, 2006
I finally got an email from the OG OC. He flamed the shit out of me. It was the awesomest. I can now die fulfilled.
posted by loquacious at 4:52 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by loquacious at 4:52 PM on March 6, 2006
ME NEXT!
ps INTERNET IS SERIOUS. plz stop joking tia.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2006
ps INTERNET IS SERIOUS. plz stop joking tia.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:03 PM on March 6, 2006
Is this the line to get a prickly e-mail from Optimus Chyme?
posted by Balisong at 7:12 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by Balisong at 7:12 PM on March 6, 2006
Sending snarky or outright hostile emails to other mefites because you disagree in a thread is pretty damn childish
Here is the sum total of people I've sent nastygrams to, other than spammers: DirtyCreature, dios, jonmc (sentiments later retracted), konolia, and if he's really sensitive and didn't realize it was a joke and god help him if so, quonsar.
Sum total of nice-o-grams, condolences, "great posts," etc: too numerous to list, at least a hundred of them to fifty or more different posters.
It just so happens that dios and DirtyCreature happen to be extraordinarily thin-skinned, and both latched onto - with grim unblinking tenacity, it seems - this preposterous idea that I was attacking them day after day, never letting up the horrific assault, when in fact it was literally a couple of emails. And as you can see above, the ones I sent to DC were particularly benign.
I recently received an email titled "Your Post," with the body text "fuck off." It was from a very frequent poster who I will not reveal, because email is email and MeFi is MeFi. I have no interest in real, serious, tongue-way-out-of-cheek drama and have kept all the real shit off-site. Except for when I blew my stack at HTuttle, of course. That was a mistake and I admit it now.
A for-instance: if I had a beef with someone who kept, oh, say, calling me Keith, I'd email him instead of following him around this site obsessively and vice-versa, like some twisted, irrelevant ouroboros. You know, just hypothetically.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:13 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Here is the sum total of people I've sent nastygrams to, other than spammers: DirtyCreature, dios, jonmc (sentiments later retracted), konolia, and if he's really sensitive and didn't realize it was a joke and god help him if so, quonsar.
Sum total of nice-o-grams, condolences, "great posts," etc: too numerous to list, at least a hundred of them to fifty or more different posters.
It just so happens that dios and DirtyCreature happen to be extraordinarily thin-skinned, and both latched onto - with grim unblinking tenacity, it seems - this preposterous idea that I was attacking them day after day, never letting up the horrific assault, when in fact it was literally a couple of emails. And as you can see above, the ones I sent to DC were particularly benign.
I recently received an email titled "Your Post," with the body text "fuck off." It was from a very frequent poster who I will not reveal, because email is email and MeFi is MeFi. I have no interest in real, serious, tongue-way-out-of-cheek drama and have kept all the real shit off-site. Except for when I blew my stack at HTuttle, of course. That was a mistake and I admit it now.
A for-instance: if I had a beef with someone who kept, oh, say, calling me Keith, I'd email him instead of following him around this site obsessively and vice-versa, like some twisted, irrelevant ouroboros. You know, just hypothetically.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:13 PM on March 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
ha. quonsar calls you "Optimus Chump" and "Optimal Chimp." ha.
posted by shmegegge at 8:19 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 8:19 PM on March 6, 2006
"Optimal Chimp" is a description I'd bear proudly. As it is, I'm barely a sub-optimal chimp, despite agile, opposing thumbs and a blood-engorged, grotesquely swollen forebrain.
posted by loquacious at 8:45 PM on March 6, 2006
posted by loquacious at 8:45 PM on March 6, 2006
You can tell scody is serious because her link has SCIENCE in it
posted by blag at 5:25 AM on March 7, 2006
posted by blag at 5:25 AM on March 7, 2006
"I'd email him instead of following him around this site obsessively..."
I didn't. I know because I'm me. If it appeared that I did, then that makes me question the times I've made the same assumption about other people. If someone really annoys you, it's hard not to repond to one of their comments when you read them.
There probably are people who actually do follow people around by looking at their comment list.
How I've viewed the few nasty or combative emails that have been sent to me has for the most part formed my own views about doing it myself. I think it makes the person look really bad, almost creepy. Thus, I don't see this, "[I] have kept all the real shit off-site", as a virtue, assuming the genesis of the shit was on-site.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:07 PM on March 7, 2006
I didn't. I know because I'm me. If it appeared that I did, then that makes me question the times I've made the same assumption about other people. If someone really annoys you, it's hard not to repond to one of their comments when you read them.
There probably are people who actually do follow people around by looking at their comment list.
How I've viewed the few nasty or combative emails that have been sent to me has for the most part formed my own views about doing it myself. I think it makes the person look really bad, almost creepy. Thus, I don't see this, "[I] have kept all the real shit off-site", as a virtue, assuming the genesis of the shit was on-site.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:07 PM on March 7, 2006
If someone really annoys you, it's hard not to repond to one of their comments when you read them.
That's why it's best to ignore them altogether. When I realized I wanted to make a nasty comment in response to virtually everything AlexReynolds said, I decided not to respond to him at all, no matter what. Worked for me (and there was a happy ending!).
posted by languagehat at 1:31 PM on March 7, 2006
That's why it's best to ignore them altogether. When I realized I wanted to make a nasty comment in response to virtually everything AlexReynolds said, I decided not to respond to him at all, no matter what. Worked for me (and there was a happy ending!).
posted by languagehat at 1:31 PM on March 7, 2006
I agree. It's pretty easy to spot the people that one should ignore. I know there are some people that I will ignore no matter how directly they question me or insult me. Sometimes I have changed my mind and addressed them, and I end up regretting doing so.
But as a general rule, just ignore people if you don't like them. You don't need to killfile them. You don't need to send him harassing e-mails. You don't need to follow them around the website and argue everything they say. Especially if what is annoying is just a comment.
posted by dios at 1:36 PM on March 7, 2006
But as a general rule, just ignore people if you don't like them. You don't need to killfile them. You don't need to send him harassing e-mails. You don't need to follow them around the website and argue everything they say. Especially if what is annoying is just a comment.
posted by dios at 1:36 PM on March 7, 2006
In general, I try to let stuff go if it's been over ten months. Just a purely random number that I'm throwing out there, of course.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:43 PM on March 7, 2006
Thin skinned? I don't think so. But I did want to expose for all to see what a slime Chump was given his continual "you have no credibility whatsoever" posts in several of the threads I've been involved and his persistent email harassment of me and others.
But I am no more pissed off by Chump than by the obsequious loqacious who is the one with the *real* thin skin here for starting this thread in the first place. Furthermore this loqacious guy's history of "I just made it out of my teens! Let's have fun!" pollutive posts are a perfect reason why personalized kill files should be made a Metafilter feature.
Furthermore the moderation of that post by jessamyn was completely farcical. This is what you get when you let underaged boys and girls run a forum. Ok so I have bagged out three 25 year olds now. Let's see their little sycophantic friends swarm to their rescue. I'm a lunatic? Nutcase? Damn right I am and proud of it so you better watch out post-pubescent thrill-children because I am out there......
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:34 AM on March 8, 2006 [2 favorites]
But I am no more pissed off by Chump than by the obsequious loqacious who is the one with the *real* thin skin here for starting this thread in the first place. Furthermore this loqacious guy's history of "I just made it out of my teens! Let's have fun!" pollutive posts are a perfect reason why personalized kill files should be made a Metafilter feature.
Furthermore the moderation of that post by jessamyn was completely farcical. This is what you get when you let underaged boys and girls run a forum. Ok so I have bagged out three 25 year olds now. Let's see their little sycophantic friends swarm to their rescue. I'm a lunatic? Nutcase? Damn right I am and proud of it so you better watch out post-pubescent thrill-children because I am out there......
posted by DirtyCreature at 12:34 AM on March 8, 2006 [2 favorites]
uh huh.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:22 AM on March 8, 2006
posted by exlotuseater at 1:22 AM on March 8, 2006
p.s. you totally need to smoke some pot, dude.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:24 AM on March 8, 2006
posted by exlotuseater at 1:24 AM on March 8, 2006
post-pubescent thrill-children
Hey, nothing comes up when you Google that. What's that called again, when you Google something and nothing comes up for it?
posted by Gator at 4:02 AM on March 8, 2006
Hey, nothing comes up when you Google that. What's that called again, when you Google something and nothing comes up for it?
posted by Gator at 4:02 AM on March 8, 2006
fine then dirtycreature. you're not upset by this, and you're obviously not crazy. you're just a total asshole.
posted by shmegegge at 4:32 AM on March 8, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 4:32 AM on March 8, 2006
But I am no more pissed off by Chump than by the obsequious loqacious who is the one with the *real* thin skin here for starting this thread in the first place.
I'd ask if you were high, but we've already discovered the answer to that - especially considering your last comment admitting your mental instability and the oh-so-frightening image you linked to. Hey, now that's an evolved human. Guns rule!
I called you out because you weren't actually answering a very specific and limited question. Deleting such non-answers is and has been standard procedure and policy from the get-go.
Calling me thin-skinned over that is high comedy, considering how my posting and comment history stands for itself - through civil debate, through being called supposedly offensive names and ignoring them and more.
I'm certain that if you asked any MeFi or MeCha user that knows me the question "Is loquacious thin skinned? Reactionary? Prone to emotional outbursts?" the answer would invariably be either outright laughter or something along the lines of "Heh, no. Snarky? Perhaps. But sometimes eloquent and even helpful."
Also, I have no problems with my posting history. Despite what you may see as chaos, every post I make is deliberate and intentional and seeks to make a point. That point may or may not go any deeper than humor, but I bet the number of emails that I've received that state "thanks for making me laugh" or "thanks for your good comments" far exceed the number of supposedly stalkerly emails you claim to have received.
Again, repeating what others have said for the Nth time: No one forced you to grab your soap box and your axe, enter that thread, and then proceed to indelicately grind your axe from atop your slippery soap box. Repeatedly. Despite the protests and warnings from many.
Deleting said posts isn't censorship or bias, nor is it promoting an agenda. In small words: You failed to answer the question. You derailed the thread. You single-handedly dragged animosity and confrontation into AskMe. And then you reacted very, very badly to being corrected.
You want to talk about mental health issues? Go see a psychologist. You reek of paranoia and persecution complexes.
Before your reactions in this thread and in the AskMe thread in question, I had no problem with you. Frankly, I had no idea who you were. Now I do on both counts.
And this is yet another concrete example of Matt/mathowie being more level-headed and fair than I. If this was my site, I would have host-banned you by now. You're frankly not worth the time.
Good day, sir.
And tonight? Tonight I smoke a big fat bowl for you. I had refrained from it, previously, but now it's obvious that the need is great. Though it may be wasted symbology - pun intended - the message is clear. And that message is: "Chill, man. You're harshing my mellow."
posted by loquacious at 11:39 PM on March 8, 2006
I'd ask if you were high, but we've already discovered the answer to that - especially considering your last comment admitting your mental instability and the oh-so-frightening image you linked to. Hey, now that's an evolved human. Guns rule!
I called you out because you weren't actually answering a very specific and limited question. Deleting such non-answers is and has been standard procedure and policy from the get-go.
Calling me thin-skinned over that is high comedy, considering how my posting and comment history stands for itself - through civil debate, through being called supposedly offensive names and ignoring them and more.
I'm certain that if you asked any MeFi or MeCha user that knows me the question "Is loquacious thin skinned? Reactionary? Prone to emotional outbursts?" the answer would invariably be either outright laughter or something along the lines of "Heh, no. Snarky? Perhaps. But sometimes eloquent and even helpful."
Also, I have no problems with my posting history. Despite what you may see as chaos, every post I make is deliberate and intentional and seeks to make a point. That point may or may not go any deeper than humor, but I bet the number of emails that I've received that state "thanks for making me laugh" or "thanks for your good comments" far exceed the number of supposedly stalkerly emails you claim to have received.
Again, repeating what others have said for the Nth time: No one forced you to grab your soap box and your axe, enter that thread, and then proceed to indelicately grind your axe from atop your slippery soap box. Repeatedly. Despite the protests and warnings from many.
Deleting said posts isn't censorship or bias, nor is it promoting an agenda. In small words: You failed to answer the question. You derailed the thread. You single-handedly dragged animosity and confrontation into AskMe. And then you reacted very, very badly to being corrected.
You want to talk about mental health issues? Go see a psychologist. You reek of paranoia and persecution complexes.
Before your reactions in this thread and in the AskMe thread in question, I had no problem with you. Frankly, I had no idea who you were. Now I do on both counts.
And this is yet another concrete example of Matt/mathowie being more level-headed and fair than I. If this was my site, I would have host-banned you by now. You're frankly not worth the time.
Good day, sir.
And tonight? Tonight I smoke a big fat bowl for you. I had refrained from it, previously, but now it's obvious that the need is great. Though it may be wasted symbology - pun intended - the message is clear. And that message is: "Chill, man. You're harshing my mellow."
posted by loquacious at 11:39 PM on March 8, 2006
Goddamn that reads snooty. Fuck not posting drunk. Don't post after work, neither. If you could, ignore most of that.
posted by loquacious at 2:07 AM on March 9, 2006
posted by loquacious at 2:07 AM on March 9, 2006
I take back everything I ever said or thought about the sub-par nature of this thread. It's gold, and keeps getting shinier.
loquacious-If you weren't so thin skinned you wouldn't need to rely on that devil drug SCHIZOPHRENIA to make yourself feel better. Thin skinned and weak.
posted by OmieWise at 4:32 AM on March 9, 2006
loquacious-If you weren't so thin skinned you wouldn't need to rely on that devil drug SCHIZOPHRENIA to make yourself feel better. Thin skinned and weak.
posted by OmieWise at 4:32 AM on March 9, 2006
See, it's like when you give a student a grade you think might be slightly better than he deserves but then he aces the final and justifies your faith. Congratulations, thread!
*gives thread diploma and a manly handshake*
posted by languagehat at 6:14 AM on March 9, 2006 [1 favorite]
*gives thread diploma and a manly handshake*
posted by languagehat at 6:14 AM on March 9, 2006 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:05 AM on March 4, 2006