Name-calling doesn't lead to further conversation

March 24, 2006 9:59 PM

"...fuck you bshort. And shove your opinions up your ass..."

"...I suspect “go fuck yourself” is about the longest sentence you can comprehend..."

"...Lard brain Nazi..."

"...And you are a shithead..."

[more inside]
posted by bshort to Etiquette/Policy at 9:59 PM (185 comments total)

Name-calling doesn't lead to further conversation, and it shouldn't be tacitly sanctioned. I don't see how verbally abusing people should ever be allowed in a community like this.
posted by bshort at 9:59 PM on March 24, 2006

You were taunting him.
posted by mullacc at 10:04 PM on March 24, 2006

It wasn't just me that he was attacking.
posted by bshort at 10:09 PM on March 24, 2006

What a fine example of Christ-like behavior!
posted by scody at 10:13 PM on March 24, 2006

Sooo...That new "Post about the topic rather than the user" reminder is working out really well.
posted by rollbiz at 10:14 PM on March 24, 2006

Looks like a childish exchange that began with this constructive comment. Let's see what Matt has to say:

Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.

Congratulations. You're why that was necessary.
posted by cribcage at 10:14 PM on March 24, 2006

In other news, religious debate turns ugly. Exclusive footage after a short break.

*grabs a beer and beef jerky. I care not for popcorn.*
posted by rollbiz at 10:15 PM on March 24, 2006

I'm just saying, is all...
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:28 PM on March 24, 2006

Sorry, I meant to link to this.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:29 PM on March 24, 2006

Wow, those excerpts really make Smedleyman look like a jerk.
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:36 PM on March 24, 2006

Whatever. It was a stupid post on a topic that's been done to death. It gave everyone a chance to grab their respective soap boxes and, OMFG, people actually ranted...

Flag it and move on.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:45 PM on March 24, 2006

As far as antogonistic comments go, that one doesn't even move the needle on the MetaRichter scale. I've seen a hell of a lot worse. I understand your wanting to call it our bshort but I think you're fighting an uphill battle by doing so. Let sleeping dogs lie.

P.S. Beautiful photos on your web site, btw
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:59 PM on March 24, 2006

Everything was going so smoothly until the post dropped off the front page. Even Konolia's divinely inspired spin certification failed to provoke the barage I expected.
That said, I think Smedleyman let himself go a little too far. I mean, "lard brain nazi"? But it's a stale thread. Nobody who isn't looking for it is likely to find it now. Just flag.
posted by maryh at 11:59 PM on March 24, 2006

I just now read as far as bshort's first insulting comment. Not that this really matters one way or another, but until I read through the thread to that point, I couldn't figure out exactly what smedlyman meant when he said about believing "nothing" and his mention of nihilism. Anyway, I think bshort misread smedlyman and it went downhill from there. Not that I read any further, mind you.

Someone mentioned in the thread that it would degenerate to people linking to wikipedia or whatever for definitions of the terms "atheist", "theist", and "agnostic. If the objection is to people throwing around assertions by supposed authorities about what a particular word "really" means, then, yeah, that's a waste of time.

But it's not a waste of time to begin a discussion like that with trying to find a nomenclature that, even if everyone isn't happy with it, makes it less likely that people will be badly misundestood. And I think this is very true in theism/atheism threads and, sadly, I also think it's a case where getting people to agree on the words they are using is not that terribly difficult. The single most important thing people could do in that discussion is to separate what people think about the nature of the theistic belief itself, independant of their thoughts on the truth value of a theist belief. A big part of the conflict that arises in this discussion is that there is a great deal of implicit epistemology inolved all mixed in with the results of various epistemolgies.

What always comes up is what an "atheist" is. And it really isn't helpful to just authoritatively announce that what you think it means is what it means. Instead, recognize that as a practical matter, there are varieties of "non-belief" just as there are varieties of belief. Some categorical logic and maybe symbolic logic would be helpful. Surely a strong assertion of non-existence is qualitatively distinct from an uninterested assertion of non-existence. And those, too, are distinct from a complete indifference that, for whatever reason, says that the likeliehoods are even. And we're not even talking about the epistemology of the matter. We're just looking at some assertions that arise from or are related to various epistemologies. For a lot of people, "agnostic" means an assertion of the impossibility that a truth value can be found. Their belief system is explicitly and consciously an epistemology. Which is rather interesting. For other people, "agnostic" doesn't assert anything about the knowability of this matter, but rather is an expression of a certain amount of indifference coupled with an implicit assertion that the truth of the matter is difficult to discover.

People often are dismissive of "playing semantics", but it is certainly a useful thing to do to agree upon a terminology at the outset of the conversation. And surely all of us are aware at some level that in everyday, casual use, people's beliefs and methods vary a great deal in this matter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:40 AM on March 25, 2006

bshort, you were taunting him.
posted by matteo at 6:17 AM on March 25, 2006

scody: "What a fine example of Christ-like behavior!"

You know, when your own name is an expletive, I bet it's hard to be all patient and calm and understanding all the time.
posted by Plutor at 6:48 AM on March 25, 2006

Smedleyman gets a week off.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:51 AM on March 25, 2006

mdn's post at the end of that thread is worth reading.
posted by fleetmouse at 6:57 AM on March 25, 2006

Damn! Another god-botherer-baiting thread and I missed it!. I really must stop having a life outside MetaFilter!
posted by Decani at 7:11 AM on March 25, 2006

Wait.. so Smedleyman gets a timeout for responding to remarks like:

"I could waste all day going through the mountains of nonsense that seem to exude from your keyboard, but it's obviously not worth it"

...with a few not-especially startling insults of his own? Oh, and a clearly tongue-in-cheek reference to a topical story about internet abuse ? Is it because he is an atheist?

What a bunch of petty, sixth-form club bullshit. Sometimes the whiny, ban-happy behaviour here makes me want to hoick my ringpiece.
posted by Decani at 7:28 AM on March 25, 2006

Wait.. so Smedleyman gets a timeout for responding to remarks like:

No, the only remark I see by bshort before Smedlyman's tirade was bshort saying there was a difference between atheism and nihlism, which prompted Smedlyman to go off. Later, bshort says what you quoted, but only after a few fuck yous are flung.

bshort shouldn't have risen to the bait, but Smedlyman's behavior is inexcusable.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:38 AM on March 25, 2006

I was pretty shocked by Smedleyman's flip-out, but I did not take personal offense to it and I look forward to his return.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:05 AM on March 25, 2006

"Lard brain Nazi" is pretty funny though.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:07 AM on March 25, 2006

Decani writes "Is it because he is an atheist?"

I'd say odds of that being the reason are about 0.001%.
posted by Bugbread at 8:14 AM on March 25, 2006

Sixth-form?
posted by CRM114 at 8:19 AM on March 25, 2006

Profanity is the last option of a person without a valid rebuttal.
posted by crunchland at 8:26 AM on March 25, 2006

Thanks for pointing out the thread - some of it was an interesting skim. And agreed about mdn's input (as usual).
posted by peacay at 8:31 AM on March 25, 2006

CRM114 writes "Sixth-form?"

Sixth form
posted by Bugbread at 8:35 AM on March 25, 2006

Sixth-form?

Sixth form (think "high school").
posted by hangashore at 8:36 AM on March 25, 2006

Curses, bugbreaded again!
posted by hangashore at 8:37 AM on March 25, 2006

Sixth-form?

Google?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:44 AM on March 25, 2006

You know, when your own name is an expletive, I bet it's hard to be all patient and calm and understanding all the time.

"scody" is an expletive? Awesome.
posted by scody at 8:48 AM on March 25, 2006

Congratulations. You're why that was necessary.

and so effective too!
posted by quonsar at 8:53 AM on March 25, 2006

A tip of the hat to those who indulged my intellectual sloth.
posted by CRM114 at 9:03 AM on March 25, 2006

I guess this will be pointed to as another example of why we can't have religious posts, which is a shame. Like most ostensibly "flamey" threads, there was a lot of interesting stuff that is still worth saving from the flames of perdition. I had no idea it was still going on.

Feel free to delete my comment about the Jesus pilates though. He was probably more of a jazzercise guy.
posted by bardic at 9:10 AM on March 25, 2006

hey, bshort, remember that snotty kid who went running to teacher at school?

just sayin'
posted by andrew cooke at 9:27 AM on March 25, 2006

bshort is a whiner.
posted by delmoi at 9:30 AM on March 25, 2006

This how it should always go. People who bring call-outs in metatalk are as diminished as the people they're calling out. Equilibrium.
posted by crunchland at 9:35 AM on March 25, 2006

Stop trashing bshort---he's right. Stop insulting people--if you want to respond and insult, retort their words, not the people themselves.

I don't know why people automatically have to attack a person when they don't like what that person says instead of the person's words and positions taken. It's poison.

I'm glad there's now that reminder at the bottom of each page, but obviously it's not enough.
posted by amberglow at 9:40 AM on March 25, 2006

We should have a pop up reminder, and you have to click it to post!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:57 AM on March 25, 2006

Stop trashing bshort---he's right.

Right about what exactly?
posted by yerfatma at 10:11 AM on March 25, 2006

right about the fact that if you whine loud enough on MeTa posts, Matt will timeout/ban the guys you don't like. it's called working the ref, and it works, no matter how hard Matt tries to be fair
posted by matteo at 10:19 AM on March 25, 2006

Profanity is the last option of a person without a valid rebuttal.
Or when there are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:23 AM on March 25, 2006

In Minnesota it's called "pulling a Cris Carter". That man could get a pass interference call if you breathed in his general direction.

So...way to pull a Cris Carter, bshort.
posted by graventy at 10:25 AM on March 25, 2006

Profanity is the last option of a person without a valid rebuttal.
Or when there are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane.

Profanity is the crutch of an inarticulate motherfuck... aw fuck it. That joke wasn't even really funny the first time around. Shitcock.
posted by loquacious at 10:35 AM on March 25, 2006

and so effective too!

Since the message below comment forms asking people to play nice is only a few days old, I suspect it'll be a while before it takes effect.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:50 AM on March 25, 2006

I don't know why people automatically have to attack a person when they don't like what that person says instead of the person's words and positions taken. It's poison.

Which is why you're so quick to defend your ideological opponents, right?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:51 AM on March 25, 2006

it's called working the ref,

No it's not, it's called common decency in a group setting.

You don't walk up to people at a party and tell them to "fuck off" "fuck you" and "you are a shithead" and not get kicked out of the party until you sober up.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:52 AM on March 25, 2006

I found it really it amusing to hear an atheist whining about "verbal abuse"... especially as it was Mefi's atheists fighting among themselves. Many of the most intolerant and dismissive people here are self-described atheists, so it's funny to watch you guys chase each other's tails and finally collapse in a heap of four-lettered frustration.

It stops being funny when someone loses an eye, or Smedleyman gets a timeout. Maybe he crossed a line, and maybe he had a history of doing so, but he had a whole lot of good things to say between the outburts. It's sad that things are at a point where Matt feels he has to temporarily silence somebody for this relatively minor abuse.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:58 AM on March 25, 2006

I miss Smedleyman.

.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:03 AM on March 25, 2006

I don't know why people automatically have to attack a person when they don't like what that person says instead of the person's words and positions taken. It's poison. - amberglow

Which is why you're so quick to defend your ideological opponents, right?
posted by Kwantsar at 6:51 PM GMT on March 25

If you are looking for evidence of hypocrisy in what amberglow is saying, I don't think you've found it. He says - 'you may attack the ideas, words, positions of your ideological opponents', not 'you must defend ideological opponents from personal attacks'. Quite a difference. Especially when we have enough of a job just rebutting other people's words as it is.

Do you rush to defend your ideological opponents? Do you even have ideological opponents?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:08 AM on March 25, 2006

it's called working the ref,

No it's not, it's called common decency in a group setting

I haven't made myself clear, then. Smedleyman's fuck-yous were certainly very bad manners ("fuck-you" tantrums turn this place into MetaUsenet even more than it usually is), but bshort worked the ref pretty well. if one whines loud enough, the ref will be afraid to be seen as unfair, and will maybe start second-guessing his or her decisions, and err on the side of the, ahem, whiner.
posted by matteo at 11:17 AM on March 25, 2006

Alternately, it was smedley's words that influenced Matt, and not merely the fact that someone pointed them out.
posted by crunchland at 12:03 PM on March 25, 2006

Loud complaints about how the "ref is being worked" is also an attempt at working the ref. Very meta.
posted by moonbiter at 12:10 PM on March 25, 2006

Just download a greasemonkey script and killfile him. MeFi is infinitely better when people who are consistently abusive don't have an audience.

You cannot count on the admins to be fair or reasonable or to apply any kind of standards to their moderation. Letting the tards scream soundlessly into the void is the way to go.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:19 PM on March 25, 2006

the message below comment forms

Would the recently implemented note added to the comment box be more effective if it were placed above the comment TEXTAREA?

If the table was filled in this order:

Posting as:
Note:
comment:

(Why no capital "c" on comment? The "Post Comment" button has one.)

then the poster would be more likely to see the note when composing a comment. What I see happening now is that I can scroll down far enough to write a comment but not see the note which is still below the viewport. Once my comment is ready, I scroll a bit further to hit the post/preview button but there's no need/desire/time to read the note.

Also by being just below the "Posting as:" line it will have the effect that the text will read like this:

"shoesfullofdust (logout) Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site"

thus directing the note at the user.

Just a thought.
posted by shoesfullofdust at 12:21 PM on March 25, 2006

(Just to be more clear -- while the mods will often be fair and/or reasonable, it just can't be counted on. Which is why I recommend killscripts, which can be.)
posted by solid-one-love at 12:24 PM on March 25, 2006

If you are looking for evidence of hypocrisy in what amberglow is saying, I don't think you've found it. He says - 'you may attack the ideas, words, positions of your ideological opponents', not 'you must defend ideological opponents from personal attacks'. Quite a difference. Especially when we have enough of a job just rebutting other people's words as it is.

Did I say that it was hypocrisy? I implied that amberglow's outrage is selective-- I don't recall him often showing up when people "attack" the person rather than the ideas of say, dios (every thread is about dios!). As you suggested, that's probaly not really hypocrisy. Good thing I didn't label him a hypocrite.

Do you rush to defend your ideological opponents?

No. Neither do I go around calling minor speedbumps "poison." And I barely have a sense of justice.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:26 PM on March 25, 2006

wow, so someone disagreed with smedleyman, and a lot of people didn't respond to him, and he decides the whole "restraint thing" wasn't getting him anywhere and instead starts calling names and being a jerk. I know that he made a point of trying to show how civil he was being, but there really wasn't enough reason to abandon that in the remainder of his comments.

good for this timeout. there's been a lot of discussion around here about how to bring mefi back to a more civil tone, and I think it's good to see how sterner moderation will work.
posted by shmegegge at 12:37 PM on March 25, 2006

the thing I like about timeouts in particular is that there's no permanent damage done. Even the best contributers to the site can be given one because in a week they'll be back to contributing well again.
posted by shmegegge at 12:38 PM on March 25, 2006

what happened here, by the way? I wasn't aware that metatalk threads got deleted..
posted by By The Grace of God at 12:42 PM on March 25, 2006

nevermind, found the answer.
posted by By The Grace of God at 12:48 PM on March 25, 2006

Bad form, Matt. As Crunchland notes, the first slap of the glove came FROM bshort to Smedly.
posted by klangklangston at 1:35 PM on March 25, 2006

Mathowie: bshort shouldn't have risen to the bait, but Smedlyman's behavior is inexcusable.

Hang on. If you're going to timeout Smedleyman for profanity, so be it — but you've got that first bit backward. You wanted people to discuss issues and topics rather than attacking each other, right? That's exactly what Smedleyman was doing when Bshort let fly with, "Once again you prove that you have no clue."

Ban the guy for flipping out if you want, but don't accuse him of "baiting." He was discussing the issue just like you wanted when some jackass ignored your new guideline and made things personal.
posted by cribcage at 1:41 PM on March 25, 2006

YEah but smedley was the one who escalated it. Sometimes even if someone baits you, you have to keep it under wraps or, for novelty, find a CLEVER way to tell someone off.
posted by cell divide at 1:42 PM on March 25, 2006

...And yeah, excessive profanity might get you kicked out of a party. But where I come from, you're just as likely to get kicked out if you walk around interrupting philosophical conversations to tell people they have no clue.
posted by cribcage at 1:45 PM on March 25, 2006

We should have a pop up reminder, and you have to click it to post!
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:57 AM PST on March 25 [!]

I think that only people who get timeouts for violating the civility rule should have to click a popup reminder to be nice beofore posting --for as long as they keep contributing to Metafilter.

Oh yeah, and each timeout adds another popup.
posted by sic at 2:05 PM on March 25, 2006

Smedleyman's conduct was apalling and he fully deserves his (Woo! Spring)break.
To say that atheist=nihilist is pretty glib, and does show a misunderstanding or hostility towards the former; I thought about responding to it, and I'm sure a lot of other folks did too.
I'd be 100% on bshort's side if it wasn't for that dang-blasted "Once again you prove... "
Would I say that that constituted baiting?
Not by my definition, and besides, no one can force you to bite the hook if you don't want to.
Would I say that it was indicative of the larger, and much more common issue of people (Myself included) not letting shit go, and allowing their personal disputes and grudges to compromise their motivations, words, and actions here?
Definitely.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:09 PM on March 25, 2006

Did I say that it was hypocrisy? I implied that amberglow's outrage is selective-- I don't recall him often showing up when people "attack" the person rather than the ideas of say, dios (every thread is about dios!). As you suggested, that's probaly not really hypocrisy. Good thing I didn't label him a hypocrite.

Do you rush to defend your ideological opponents?

No. Neither do I go around calling minor speedbumps "poison." And I barely have a sense of justice.

My outrage is at the slimy and immature method of attacking the person instead of the statements of the person, not at who the person is. And insulting personal attacks are not at all "minor speedbumps"--If you've been on the receiving end of these types of attacks you'd realize that. They stop discussion and they engender animosity. The vast majority of people do not call names in the blue, and if they do, they should be called out. I spoke up here because bshort is right, and he was being mocked. Discussion should not result in personal insults towards other members--it poisons the very purpose of us being here and participating. And mocking or otherwise deriding those people who do call them out is not helpful. If bshort is just as guilty of personal attacks then he should be timed out too.
posted by amberglow at 2:11 PM on March 25, 2006

I don't know what Smedleyman's feelings are about all of this, but if the week ban causes him to give up on Metafilter all together, well, that'd be a loss. I'd trade 10 whining bshorts for 1 cursing Smedleyman, not because that would be just but because it makes this place more entertaining.
posted by mullacc at 2:14 PM on March 25, 2006

Well, maybe bshorts has ten sock puppets he'd be willing to give up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:41 PM on March 25, 2006

Or, rather, Mr. Shorts.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:41 PM on March 25, 2006

I love that no matter what someone does, anyone posting a MeTa thread calling them on it gets an equal amount of shit.

Do some research and post a spammer call-out? You have too much time on your hands!

MeTa someone who self-links and derails every thread he posts in? Well who cares because you're a butt head!

Someone freaks out and has a swearfest in a relatively civil thread? You were baiting them!

Smedleyman is a good poster and I like him and I don't particularly care when I get a few "fuck you"s thrown my way and I'm not going to MeTa them. But no one should be expected to get off scott-free for it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2006

No one suggested he should get off scot-free. He flipped out, and if Matt wants to bench him for a week then so be it. But Matteo was right, this was gaming the ref: BShort poked Smedleyman with a stick, and then he came sobbing to MeTa when he got punched in the nose. He did exactly what we've spent the past week talking about not doing, which was to attack a person rather than discuss ideas.

If the potty-mouth is going to get a timeout, I think the instigator should sit with him. And at the very least, let's spare the violin-bowing about how poor li'l Bshort was "baited."
posted by cribcage at 3:47 PM on March 25, 2006

(modified from a am email I sent)

MetaTalk encourages a culture of whining to Matt and Jessamyn, and the belief that whoever whines loudest and longest about "unfair" "liberal" "groupthink" will eventually get the deletion they're begging for.

And knowing that whining works, it also encourages (I think -- Matt & Jessamyn see the flags and I don't) some ballot stuffing, where one member of a "gang" notifies all his compatriots, let's go after such-and-such a post.

Together, this combines a mob mentality with a whine and bitch and suck up to the admins approach, and it does the opposite of encouraging adults to act like adults. It just creates more dependence, more incentive to whine and form gangs, more and more dumbass navel-gazing in MetaTalk because the world isn't perfect and Mommy, Billy said I was a doodie-head! It's the Internet -- it's just other people's opinions -- get over it, kids!

Smedleyman went over the top, but bshort appears to have been counting on this. bshort taunted Smedleyman and then --- with butter-doesn't-melt-in-my-mouth "innocence" -- whined to teacher that Smedleyman "is being a meanie and saying bad cuss words!"

Most commenters here are over 18. Nominal adults.

Now I've at times debated with people at parties. Disagreements have occasionally led to "fuck you"s. But I can't ever recall anyone, merely over words, asking the party's host to throw anyone out.

(Well, ok, once an ex-gf was organizing a party and didn't want me invited. She was promptly and unanimously overruled by the other organizers.)

It's a web site on the Internet. People say things. Some of those things will be things you don't like hearing. If you can't handle that, take up macrame or fly-fishing or stamp collecting.

Grow the fuck up, grow a skin. Stop whining, stop tattling to "teacher". Jesus.
posted by orthogonality at 4:19 PM on March 25, 2006

Why are any of us giving any of this a moment's thought?

Really.
posted by konolia at 4:50 PM on March 25, 2006

This is why you always bring religion up at the dinner table. Such fun.

If you are looking for evidence of hypocrisy in what amberglow is saying, I don't think you've found it. He says - 'you may attack the ideas, words, positions of your ideological opponents', not 'you must defend ideological opponents from personal attacks'.

Whatever, I've been called an idiot and a fucker by amberglow. Not a big deal though, kind of a badge of honor (and I may be at certain times, but never at the same time). I would never complain about it however. Its just the internets.
posted by justgary at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2006

Bullshit. idiot maybe, but not fucker. prove it.
posted by amberglow at 5:13 PM on March 25, 2006

I look forward to Smedleyman's return. He's one of my MeFi must-reads, and I hope he decides to come back. (hey, Smed, hope you're reading this! come back, y'hear?)
posted by Quietgal at 5:22 PM on March 25, 2006

I can't understand why any of you guys react so badly to each other. Is it something in the water? Some american style of parenting? poor schooling? what?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:56 PM on March 25, 2006

If he does come back I hope he stops hitting 'return' after every goddamn sentence. I woulda timed-out the bastard just for that! [/self-parody]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:58 PM on March 25, 2006

I object to this new policy of enforced civility on account that I'm an inveterate asshole.
posted by dgaicun at 6:28 PM on March 25, 2006

orthogonality : "Now I've at times debated with people at parties. Disagreements have occasionally led to 'fuck you's. But I can't ever recall anyone, merely over words, asking the party's host to throw anyone out.

It's a web site on the Internet. People say things. Some of those things will be things you don't like hearing. If you can't handle that, take up macrame or fly-fishing or stamp collecting.

Grow the fuck up, grow a skin. Stop whining, stop tattling to 'teacher'. Jesus."

Well, that's just the thing. There are good parties, and there are bad parties. A party where everyone is just telling eachother "fuck off and die, shit-for-brains" is a bad party. Then the party ends, and you go somewhere else, and hope the party is better. The deal is, Metafilter is a years' long party. It just keeps going and going. Folks who were grooving on the party don't like seeing fights in the hallway, and don't want things to get out of hand, so they tell folks to calm down. If the same guy keeps walking around trying to pick fights and telling other people to fuck off, even at a normal party you might tell the guy to go home, but if you like the party and want to stay at the party for several more years, you probably have a much stronger vested interest in getting the guy to either calm down or shut up.

You have a very positive view of human nature. "We're all adults, we should be able to act like adults without tattling to teacher." I have a very negative view of human nature. "People will act like fucks unless they have some vested reason not to." Not all of them, of course, but in any given semi-random sample of people, there are those who will act like fucks. Which leaves one with two (basic) choices when dealing with them, if you are of the mindset that you wish the party to improve and continue:

Leave them alone
Try to change their behaviour

In my experience, leaving assholes alone does nothing to improve or limit their behaviour.

So, to try and change their behaviour, you have two basic choices: peer pressure, and action by a position of authority. Sure, there are other, out-of-the-box approaches (rewards systems, etc.), but considering that evidence shows that matt tends to go with "minimal recoding approaches", those are the two choices available.
My experience with peer pressure at MeFi is that it doesn't really work on anyone who doesn't already feel bad for what they've done, in which case it isn't really necessary. Which leaves authority. While I am not a big fan of authority figures, there is something to be said about having a benevolent authority figure in an optional setting. I've been in business meetings without a chairman, which devolved into useless bitch-n-moan sessions and wastes of time, and seen the effect of a chairman being introduced, curtailing most of the shit and making it a useful, non-aggravating, pleasant use of time.

No, this isn't a conference. I don't think we should be using Robert's Rules of Order. I think there should be plenty of leeway. However, given the alternatives: leaving stuff alone (which results in shit remaining) and peer pressure (which results in shit remaining), I'm willing to take my chances on a bit of stewardship. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but the argument "We shouldn't have to tattle to teacher" seems to be countered by the fact that nothing else we've tried seems to work.
posted by Bugbread at 6:29 PM on March 25, 2006

Well, amberglow, this is pretty close, no?
posted by Kwantsar at 6:42 PM on March 25, 2006

It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is, Kwantsar.
posted by Cyrano at 6:57 PM on March 25, 2006

A party where everyone is just telling eachother "fuck off and die, shit-for-brains" is a bad party.

Clearly not Irish-Catholic. That sounds like an Episcopalian attitude to me.
posted by yerfatma at 7:01 PM on March 25, 2006

You (ortho!?) have a very positive view of human nature.

Oh. My. God. That is the most twisted piece of logic I have ever read.

Ortho tells his cooties to grow the fuck up before getting in the shower every morning. Tells his mom to grow the fuck up before banging her in the ass every night. And tells MetaFilter to grow the fuck up before checking his stock quotes and porn sites on the internets every hour.

Positive? More like obsessive-compulsive.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:04 PM on March 25, 2006

If I Had An Anus : "Ortho tells his cooties to grow the fuck up before getting in the shower every morning. Tells his mom to grow the fuck up before banging her in the ass every night. And tells MetaFilter to grow the fuck up before checking his stock quotes and porn sites on the internets every hour.

Positive? More like obsessive-compulsive."

Be that as it may, he thinks that his cooties will/can just grow the fuck up. He thinks his mom will/can just grow the fuck up. And he thinks MetaFilter will/can just grow the fuck up. That may not be very positive from your point of view, but from my "will not and probably can not grow the fuck up" point of view, it's a freakin' affirmation of the human spirit.
posted by Bugbread at 7:21 PM on March 25, 2006

Matt needs to sponsor a casino-style cheezy mud pit wrestling match between the people here who are carrying deep grudges through MeFi and/or AskMe. The winner doesn't get banned. The prize money goes to Matt.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:33 PM on March 25, 2006

Bullshit. idiot maybe, but not fucker. prove it.
posted by amberglow

Actually, someone else said it. Wrote about it on another site seeming to regret saying it, at which point you said "he is".

Which I don't care about. Anyone can go over the line in a heated discussion, including me. And you do a very good job of NOT insulting others and only discussing topics. My point being that no one's perfect. We should remember that.
posted by justgary at 8:40 PM on March 25, 2006

And I've said many things I regret, though less and less as time goes on.
posted by justgary at 8:40 PM on March 25, 2006

If I Had An Anus writes "Ortho tells his cooties to grow the fuck up before getting in the shower every morning. Tells his mom to grow the fuck up before banging her in the ass every night. And tells MetaFilter to grow the fuck up before checking his stock quotes and porn sites on the internets every hour."


Yesterday, I approached "If I Has An Anus" -- who also has the sockpuppet account "DanOStuporStar" in IIRC. Dan had recently made some comments attacking me, and I'd responded by calling him immature.

In IRC, and I asked Dan, literally, "what can we do to bury the hatchet?" Today, Dan's attacked again, accusing me of having sex with my own mother.

Below is a partial transcript of that conversation.

<orthogonal> Here's the thing dan, I've ignored you for a while now. You post a thread, I don't comment in it. To avoid ANY PERCEPTION on your part that I'm being a dick to you.

<dano> ok

<orthogonal> because I know that people by their very nature, read into other's actions their underlying motivations. I do it, you do, everyone does.

<dano> thoughts are private. comments are arent

<orthogonal> and when you made your promise, to complely ignore me, I figured our frictions were over.
Because I have kept to that, except when you've opened thinsg up.
So why did you make that pledge, if you knew you couldn't keep to it?

<dano> i didnt know it

<orthogonal> Ok, so you were sincere when you made the pledge?

<dano> sure, but considering my blood was boiling after yr 10 paragrapgh rant, i'm not sure if i was being completely rational

<orthogonal> Yes, well, I'm sure I was slightly annpyed as well. ;)
But having made the promise, why'd you decide not to adhere to it?

[ . . . .]

<dano> whats yr point? i'm not going to go out of my way to avoid you just b/c yr an ass. i said i would, i'm not. call that what you will.

<orthogonal> Well, what would you call it if I'd said I'd do something, and then decided I wouldn't, dano?

<dano> i doubt i'd call it anything

<orthogonal> Ok.

<dano> were you looking for liar?

<orthogonal> But dano, I say I want to bury teh hatchet. But that doesn't work, because you periodically seem to feel the need to take up the hatchet again.
So what can we do about that?

<dano> what i said today was no hachet job

[. . . .]

<orthogonal> dano, you have kids, right?

<dano> two

<orthogonal> they ever get into spats?

<dano> one is too young still

<orthogonal> ah, lucky man.
But let's think forward five yeras.

<dano> do you?

<orthogonal> oh, fuck no. ;)

<dano> lets not. it's late.

<orthogonal> Ler's say your one kid smacks the other, and teh smacked kid smacks back ever harder and calls the first one ugly

<orthogonal> Which kid is at fault?

<dano> goodnight

<orthogonal> dano, I'm trying to work things out with you.

<dano> no, you're trying to 'win'. apologize in one of the threads, then maybe we'll talk.

<orthogonal> You want me to apologize publicly for what, dano?

[INFO] No such nick/channel

So Dan seems determined to keep sniping away at me whenever he sees an opening, going so far as to accuse me of incest. Until he gets his apology.

Dan, you promised before that you'd stop harrassing me, but then decided you didn't need to bother to keep yourmise. So I have no great hope apologizing will bring this to an end.

But what other choice do I have?

Ok, Dan, I apologize. For whatever I've done to you, I'm sorry. For however I've hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. For watever I've done to cause you to make up lurid stories about my mother, I'm sorry.

Let's just bring this to a close.
posted by orthogonality at 8:41 PM on March 25, 2006

On preview, I missed kwantsar's comment.
posted by justgary at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2006

Well, amberglow, this is pretty close, no?
If that's the closest you can come --- me saying "he is" --on another site too, to someone else's characterization of you--then your original statement is false. That's not pretty close, and it's not here in any thread on this site, and it's not even directed at you, but about you.
posted by amberglow at 8:53 PM on March 25, 2006

The internet is high school. Or at least Metafilter is. Or this thread, at least.

Either way: disappointing (but funny).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:04 PM on March 25, 2006

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, Amberglow...

You had thirteen minutes to read that justgary actually paid you a complement:

"And you do a very good job of NOT insulting others and only discussing topics."

But you still had to come back at him. With a squirmy, legalistic defense of your statement that you would surely deride if it was made by one of the people here you've admitted you despise.

You could have called justgary a fucker while standing on the moon (oh, I'm sorry... You could have just said, "he is," after someone else called him a fucker... on another blood-relative website, while standing on the moon,) and you'd be just as full of shit.

That's not pretty close, and it's not here in any thread on this site, and it's not even directed at you, but about you.

I mean, yikes! If I could have scripted a follow-up to my Clinton reference, I don't think I could have done a better job.
posted by Cyrano at 9:12 PM on March 25, 2006

it's not even directed at you, but about you.

I'm sorry. Did you just try to draw a distinction between saying, "You're a fucker, Jack," and saying, "Jack is a fucker"?
posted by cribcage at 9:25 PM on March 25, 2006

Does anybody else think we take Mefi a little too seriously?
posted by doctor_negative at 9:47 PM on March 25, 2006

Maybe everyone on the site neets a weeks time out.
No posts. No comments.
That way there will be no one stirring up shit, or provoking, or being a liar, or being called a liar, no petty snarks, no MeTa callouts, and no one needing to be banned.
We might even get through a whole week without someone poisioning the site with their pointed commentary.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 10:21 PM on March 25, 2006

I think we can all agree that posting IRC logs is the lamest of the lame.
posted by delmoi at 10:38 PM on March 25, 2006

Maybe everyone on the site neets a weeks time out.
No posts. No comments.

Good idea, except rather then "Everyone" we just apply this to the handfull of whiners who take this site way to personally.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 PM on March 25, 2006

this is really funny how seriously you all take yourselves this shit
posted by slogger at 10:44 PM on March 25, 2006

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, Amberglow...

You had thirteen minutes to read that justgary actually paid you a complement:

"And you do a very good job of NOT insulting others and only discussing topics."

But you still had to come back at him. With a squirmy, legalistic defense of your statement ...

What's your problem, cyrano?
It seems to me i was responding to Kwantsar. It seems that he's the one who accused me, and the one i responded to.
Well, amberglow, this is pretty close, no?
posted by Kwantsar at 9:42 PM EST on March 25 [!]

That was not clear to you?

and cribcage, i drew a distinction between someone else calling someone a fucker, and me doing so, which is actually what I was accused of. It's really clear, i would think. I love that all of you are jumping in, but if it stops bshort from getting shit, fine--enjoy yourselves.
posted by amberglow at 11:01 PM on March 25, 2006

amberglow : "i drew a distinction between someone else calling someone a fucker, and me doing so, which is actually what I was accused of. It's really clear, i would think."

With statements like "Person A said person B is a fucker. He is.", it isn't really clear. Or rather, it's clear to you, and it's clear to other people, but what's clear to some people is the exact opposite of what's clear to other people.

I tend to call that "unclear".
posted by Bugbread at 11:21 PM on March 25, 2006

What if I said that I love all of you fuckers? Would that help?
posted by scody at 11:45 PM on March 25, 2006

Somehow ortho missed the point of IIHAA's extremely provocative comment...that it was extremely provocative and ortho had just said that being an adult means not allowing oneself to be provoked.

I think it's a good idea to have thicker skin, not tattle to authority figures, and not to whine. But using these good ideas as a means to defend the agressive and condemn the aggrieved should be strongly questioned because it is to a degree an inherently dishonest position for most people—that ortho found himself offended by what he claims was IIHAA's unacceptable behavior is a good example of this hypocrisy. We all believe that one person is capable of doing some harm to another person; and most of us, I think, will agree that there's some point along a continuum where even speech can be harmful. Claiming that the aggrieved should just deal with it and not let it bother him/her is a tacit endorsement of activity most of us will otherwise agree is harmful.

Until I meet a person who really and truly lives by this rule, I can't take it seriously. That is, when they start to think that they've been treated badly they squash that irrational thought and realize that the blame lies on themselves for being upset.

Now, I'll admit that Epictetus may have lived like this. But I've not met him. Marcus Aurelius? Maybe him, too. Does that mean we can reasonably expect everyone to be so extremely stoic that it becomes a minimum standard of behavior? And what to make of those who take offense at those who are not stoic? Is it their problem that other people aren't stoic? Not by stoicism's own logic, it's not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:24 AM on March 26, 2006

To be fair, EB, I think ortho's got two points here: "grow a skin" and "don't complain to Matt". His getting riled up by IAHAA's comment indicates that he may need help on the skin issue (and I'm saying this as someone with a much thinner skin than ortho, so I'm not looking down on him, here), but so far I've yet to see him go against his "don't complain to Matt" point.
posted by Bugbread at 12:40 AM on March 26, 2006

Just to help people out, if they found EB's comment opaque, here's a good discussion on stoicism.
posted by gsb at 12:41 AM on March 26, 2006

Personally, I think we should watch out, or we'll get Metafilter sued for discriminating against people with online tourettes syndrome.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 1:00 AM on March 26, 2006

For whatever I've done to you, I'm sorry.

Ortho, first off, you need to stop referring to me as Dan. It is disrespectful and confusing not to use people's MeFi handles. In your case it is also hypocritical given the hissyfits you have thrown when even the slightest hint of your real name is mentioned. I've even seen you freak out when somebody mentioned your picture is available on flickr (no indication of where, just that it's there somewhere).

Second, in the past you have accused me of passive-aggressive behavior, yet that is your idea of an apology? Posting a private conversation to MetaTalk, and then saying you're sorry "for whatever I've done to you"? Pathetic. No, that doesn't cut it. You need to flag your comment and then email matt/jessamyn explaining that you fucked up by posted unauthorized material and requesting that they remove it. Remember to say please. Having been successful in getting that comment removed, you may then attempt your apology again. Here's a hint, though, "whatever I've done to you" spells insincerity and is unacceptable. Admit you've made just one mistake out of all the abuse you've hurled towards me, you'll feel better afterwards.

(My promise to ignore you occurred at MetaChat and I emphasized "here" to make it clear it didn't apply at MetaFilter. It was in a thread you started wherein you were whining about cross-posting between separate sites and requesting a policy be established to stop it. A policy you have violated three times now in the last few days.)

Finally, about the fucking your mom in the ass thing. For the record, MetaTalk, I have no evidence to support my claim that ortho has cooties or engages in anal sex with his mother. I posted that comment mostly for the glee I get out poking at stick at ortho. For that, I should apologize to the rest of you. BitI did have a point, testing the limits of this policy which resulted in Smedleyman's timeout...would an obviously rhetorical personal attack be censured? Have we become that vanilla? After all, it's a web site on the Internet. People say things.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:02 AM on March 26, 2006

I've yet to see him go against his "don't complain to Matt" point.

I'm assuming his repeated whinging about Matt not deleting the thread with his name in it, even months after it was outed, doesn't count in your book. I guess I can see that.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:08 AM on March 26, 2006

If I Had An Anus : "I'm assuming his repeated whinging about Matt not deleting the thread with his name in it, even months after it was outed, doesn't count in your book."

No, they count. I just forgot about that. Sorry.
(To be fair, I think ortho's argument is about "complaining to Matt just because something offends you". Ortho was scared of real-world repercussions (I'm not taking a stance either way whether that fear was reasonable or unreasonable), so it's a little bit of a different issue than complaining about profanity or the like. But, regardless, when I said what I did above, I had just plum forgotten about the whole name scandal issue. Sorry.)
posted by Bugbread at 1:12 AM on March 26, 2006

it's a web site on the Internet. People say things.

Shit happens.

Mistakes were made.

The Devil made me do it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:37 AM on March 26, 2006

Lard brain Nazi?


posted by dgaicun at 4:08 AM on March 26, 2006

> We should have a pop up reminder, and you have to click it to post!

And the popup should contain embedded audio of a special Metafilter medley version of the Catherine Tate Show ringtones!

'Are you disrespecting me? Are you disrespecting me and my family? Are you calling me a lard brain nazi? Am I bothered, though? Am I? Look at my post. Does it look bothered? Post, bothered, post, bothered, post, bothered, I ain't bothered!!!'
posted by funambulist at 4:17 AM on March 26, 2006

By the way, back when we read Epictetus in college, I then thought, and still think, that his arguments have merit. It is absolutely true that the only person you really have complete control over is yourself. It certainly is a philosophy that would get a slave (Epictetus, former) through the nights and days. On the other hand, Aurelius was also a stoic, and he was an emperor. (Although another literary and philosophical discussion is whether great historical figures like Aurelius are any more "free" than a common slave.)

My judgment is that this philosophy, stoicism, is valuable and even necessary to the degree to which we each must come to terms with the harrowing truth that we are so much at the mercy of other people and their whims. Just so, we are at the mercy of a universe we don't fully understand and in the end, there awaiting all of us, is death. There are many things we have no control over other than our own reactions to them.

But when stoicism is used as a standard in the service of a rhetorical or even practical device by which other people's behavior is harshly judged, then it transforms from a defense into an offense. And such an easily self-serving offense it is: it is one thing when a slave bears the whip of a cruel master, it is quite another when a cruel master insists that it is virtuous for the slave to bear it.

And, too, there's the obvious truth that if it's the case that we're at the mercy of other people's whims, then it's probably the case that other people are at the mercy of ours. In that context, we do have power and we do have a responsibility to other people for our choices. The arguable deep fatalism of stoicism then may become a convenient excuse for avoiding the responsibility for our actions. So it seems to me that stoicism has great utility and virtue as a defense, but as an offense, as criticism of others, it has great capacity for seemingly justifying abdicating responsibility for our actions and how we treat others. I don't think it ever should be used as a criticism of someone else's complaint that they believe themselves to be wronged. Defensive, good. Offensive, bad. It's an easy rule to remember.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:52 AM on March 26, 2006

Ethereal Bligh writes "Somehow ortho missed the point of IIHAA's extremely provocative comment...that it was extremely provocative and ortho had just said that being an adult means not allowing oneself to be provoked."


There's a clear difference between calling someone a "lard brain" and falsely accusing someone's mother of unnatural practices.

One's a silly insult to a fellow Mefite; the other is a libel against a women who has never posted here.

If you can't see that difference, nothing I say will convince you. so I won't try. But don't force the false dichotomy of "either all attacks are OK, or none are" on me, and then accuse me of hypocrisy.

And say what you like of me, I've never insulted anyone's family here. Maybe Dan has reason to dislike me. But what has my mother even done to provoke his abuse?


Yes, I think some comments should be removed. Yes, I think that false accusations vilifying people's innocent family members are beyond the pale. Yes, I think libels should be deleted. Yes, I think that comments that out a member's name should be deleted.

And let's recall the context under which my name was outed: I'd gone to considerable effort to give the community software that makes using MetaFilter better. Many of you use that software, some of you have asked for and gotten upgrades and even personalized versions.

What has "DanOStuporStar" or his puerily-named sockpuppet "If I Has an Anus" ever done for you or for MetaFilter? 29 answers on AskMefi? (I've made 563, some involving laboriously writing and testing code for members' web sites.) He's made 1290 comments in MetaTalk, versus less than a third of that in the blue. In other words, the guy spends three times as much time fighting with other members as he spends commenting on posts. Ask yourself, with those numbers, what brings Dan to MetaFilter?


I posted the IRC snippet to demonstrate that -- rather than complaining publicly or to admins about Dan -- I'd gone to him with an olive branch, tried to resolve our differences. I got nowhere with him. I did this after Dan and I agreed to stay out of each other's way, and while I did, Dan apparently was unable to do so, and continued to bear a grudge and snipe away. Until he resumed his sniping, I neither posted anything in a thread he started, responded to any of his comments, or mentioned him in any way. I lived up to my end of the agreement. I had thought Dan and I had found a modus vivendi, that perhaps we would even come to respect one another; I was shocked and disappointed when dan went back on his word.

And so yesterday, after my private attempt to -- for a second time -- bury the hatchet was scorned, Dan felt the need to attack my mother.


And now several of you have criticized me for responding to Dan's vile insult -- not by attacking Dan or his mother or any other member of his family -- but by trying publicly to bring this grudge match to a close.

There are plenty of good, intelligent people on Metafilter. Some of those good people are ones who criticized my response to Dan.

But not one of person publicly said to Dan, "attacking somebody's mother is out of line, out of bounds, beyond the pale." Not one of you.

Delmoi, whose comments I find almost always apropos, tells me that publishing IRC snippets is lame, but apparently has no problem with accusations of incest.

Ethereal Bligh, for whom I have great respect and who spent way more time than I deserved trying to fix a technical problem I AskMefi'd about, gives us paragraphs on Stoicism -- which I'm sure is well worth reading -- but doesn't spend a sentence on telling Dan that insulting people's mothers just goes too far.

Bugbread, perhaps the most reasonable peace-maker to comment here and somebody I truly like, responds with his usual even-tempered reasonableness, but never quite gets around to saying that disgusting allegations about members' families is just plain wrong.


The solution to petty viciousness on MetaFilter isn't -- in general -- deletion. It's to have the community become actually self-policing. When a member makes a vicious attack like Dan's, when a member, like Dan, continues to snipe and attack because of a grudge, other members need to remind him that that's not what we want here. Unless, of course, that is what we want, unless you really think that vile and degrading accusations against people's mothers and families is what makes MetaFilter great.
posted by orthogonality at 6:04 AM on March 26, 2006

And by the way, has anyone pointed out that Smedleyman may was just messing around when he said "lard brained nazi"? After all, there was a post about that on the same day he wrote those comments, and it was about internet libel. He participated in that thread, too.
posted by gsb at 6:12 AM on March 26, 2006

may
posted by gsb at 6:13 AM on March 26, 2006

Orthogonality, if I believed that IIHAA's comment was actually intended to be a slur on your mother, I'd have been critical of it. But it was clearly was an ironic response to your comment telling people to grin and bear it. Yes, of course there is a line somewhere and I am aware that you did not intend to say otherwise; but then, on the other hand, you should have been (and probably are) aware that IIHAA's comment was ironic and my argument not an extreme ad absurdum but rather meant to argue that it's unclear where that line is and it's awfully convenient for you to draw the line where it puts you on the side of angels facing your rhetorical opponent across the chasm of that distinction.

It seems to me that IIHAA's intent was mostly self-evident in that he was not in earnest of what you see as slander. Compare his insults, which are superficially vicious but obviously ironic, to Smedleyman's, which are obviously said in anger and are heartfelt. So, from my perspective, what you're doing here is arguing that someone who was the object of an authentic attack should have a thicker skin while, in your case, where the attack was not authentic—yet you the target—your grievance obviously has merit and censure of your attacker a moral obligation of your peers.

I sympathize with how you feel and probably would feel the same were I in your shoes. But, from a more objective point of view, the progression of the argument and the acceptability of the insults is clear in its context. Your argument essentially amounted to "people are provocative on the Internet. It is everyone's responsibility to not allow themselves to be provoked." For the sake of making his point unequivocal, IIHAA quite deliberately made his comment as provocative as possible while nevertheless making it obvious that he does not believe what he is saying. That being the case, then IIHAA's comment was nothing but provocation—an almost pure test of your principle of stoicism with regard to people being insulting on the Internet.

You're a bright person, you know this. But for whatever reason, you have a pre-existing grievance with IIHAA and so his rhetorical provocation seemed to you to be sincere enough for you to take offense, or at least that's what you are trying to convince yourself of. Because in the context of your ongoing argument, he's pissed you off and you'd like to see him reprimanded.

Frankly, from what I know of both of you, I'm far more inclined to see you as better-behaved and well-intentioned. But that really doesn't matter because in very simple terms, you've undermined your own argument by your behavior while advocating it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:02 AM on March 26, 2006

Libel against Mrs. Ortho, Thom?

Ok, now your tenuous grip on reality is beginning to scare me so I'll put away my snips and snails and puppy dog tails for now. (Just a note, however, that the snipe which set ortho off was a comment about quoting style that had nothing to do with Thom. And, Thom, if you think those 1290+ MetaTalk comments are all fighting with other members, you might wanna click through and laugh a little.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:08 AM on March 26, 2006

IIHAA, I'm not persuaded that you have a legitimate grievance in that orth is using your first name—it was the core of your prior mefi pseudonym, after all. Whereas ortho has not done anything similar. This was the distinction I believed existed between me and rothko when we used each other's first names, and it's a distinction I think applies in this case as well.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 AM on March 26, 2006

IIHAA, I'm not persuaded that you have a legitimate grievance in that orth is using your first name—it was the core of your prior mefi pseudonym, after all.

Oh please. Ortho knows it bothers IIHAA, has been told it bothers him, yet seems to delight in doing so.

It doesn't matter that his previous pseudonym used his first name. His current one does not (hell, maybe that's why he switched).

As far as having a sockpuppet, IIHAA has never hidden that he changed his screen name. In fact, he's gone out of his way to be open about it (just look at his aim name).
posted by justgary at 8:03 AM on March 26, 2006

"Ortho knows it bothers IIHAA, has been told it bothers him, yet seems to delight in doing so."

Well, yes. But it still doesn't create an equivalency between the two of them. It's possible for both people to be in the wrong.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:12 AM on March 26, 2006

I can't understand why any of you guys react so badly to each other. Is it something in the water? Some american style of parenting? poor schooling? what?

How should one react to your smug-British tongue clucking?
posted by scarabic at 9:07 AM on March 26, 2006

wait ... wait ... do you guys mean to tell me that every time someone says someone fucks his mother or his sheep or his kids it ISN'T TRUE?????

oh, my god, i didn't know that

now i've got to rethink what i think about half the people i've heard about on the net
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 AM on March 26, 2006

ortho - I don't read your IRC transcript the way you do, and I'm surprised you'd copy it here. I do see some effort on your part to reach out, but you spend the first half of the conversation raking dano over the coals for being a welcher, someone who cannot live up to a commitment. Then you spend the second half trying to paint an analogy that features him as a bratty child. He won't play your game, and ultimately makes a quiet exit. This is taking any chance to snipe at you?
posted by scarabic at 9:12 AM on March 26, 2006

And dude, ortho, stop milking the mom comment. It's rude, but ultimately a "silly insult" and you are getting pretty shrill trying to whip it up into some kind of online atrocity.
posted by scarabic at 9:19 AM on March 26, 2006

Coo ur, I wonder if Smedleyman will come back now his free speech is infringed. Perhaps he should break out the symbolic logic on himself.
posted by bonaldi at 9:20 AM on March 26, 2006

amberglow, you wrote this: If that's the closest you can come --- me saying "he is" --on another site too, to someone else's characterization of you.

And you say that the above statement is a reply to me?

I am not justgary. As far as I can tell, you've somehow mixed the two of us up.

Furthermore, it's true that you did not directly call justgary a fucker. In fact, someone else called justgary a fucker, and you wrote "He is."-- which isn't calling someone a "fucker," but it is pretty close. I'd like someone (other than you) to explain to me how your explicit agreement to "justgary is a fucker" isn't close to writing that "justgary is a fucker."
posted by Kwantsar at 9:21 AM on March 26, 2006

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Free speech just doesn't work.
posted by boaz at 9:23 AM on March 26, 2006

smug-British tongue clucking
Was it worth typing that xenophobic snark scarabic? Is it because you saw my exasperated query as xenophobic itself? Does smug mean what you think it means, 'cos I am not in the least self-satisfied with pointing out the inexplicable lack of restraint in much of this sites dialogue.

It is an accepted fact that Mefi is a de facto american institution, with free admission to those from other regions, sure, but the dominant culture remains american.

So, the shrill, personalised attacks that go on here - and, truthfully, in most of the blogosphere - seem to be, in good measure, a result of american styles of discourse.

In fact, I would go further and say that it may be a result of the almost-fetishised regard americans have for the free speech as protected in the US constitution. Many members here would much rather use the right to verbally abuse each other than to accept the responsibility to be civil.

How should one react to your smug-British tongue clucking?
Truly, don't react to it 'cos it's british. Whatever the hell tongue clucking means, it isn't, I would guess, limited to brits.
Try a little thought experiment:
had I said "I can't understand why any of you guys react so badly to each other. Is it something in the water? Something to do with our style of parenting? poor schooling? what?"
would you have thought it was smug, or tongue-clucking?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:48 AM on March 26, 2006

Sorry to introduce a linguistic query into this shitfesten, but why would being called a 'fucker' - other than being coarse - be insulting, going on it's literal meaning? Or 'wanker'?

I guess 'wanker' has connotations of 'not being able to get a girl/boyfriend, but 'fucker'is quite the opposite in literal terms. What is the hidden meaning?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:11 AM on March 26, 2006

The connotation of the fuck in fucker is as in 'fuck over', 'fuck with' or 'fuck for brains', not 'have intercourse with'
posted by boaz at 10:34 AM on March 26, 2006

Actually, I think calling someone's upbringing and education into question because they get snippy on a website is just plain stupid.
posted by scarabic at 10:41 AM on March 26, 2006

Yeah, right.

People's reacting badly to each other, short tempers, snippiness, ability to 'play well with others'...can't have anything to do with culture, can it?

Must be genetic, then. No, wait...
posted by dash_slot- at 10:57 AM on March 26, 2006

amberglow: i drew a distinction between someone else calling someone a fucker, and me doing so, which is actually what I was accused of.

No. We all agree that someone else said, "Jack's a fucker." What you're trying to argue is that there's any significant distinction between saying, "Jack's a fucker," versus agreeing, "Yeah, he is." And that's why everyone is laughing at you. FYI.

dash-slot: Was it worth typing that xenophobic snark...

Oh, please. You jumped in with a comment about "American style parenting," and now you want to play the poor, persecuted European-on-the-Internet card? Scarabic was exactly right: Anyone posting into a two-day-old MeTa flamethread has no business preaching about the high road. We're all here 'cause we get a snicker from this crap. If you want the high road, stay out of the thread. Don't walk in with your nose in the air.

orthogonality: You just typed the name "Dan" 14 times, dude. I agree the mother comment was out of line; ironically, I think that comment was more deserving of a timeout than anything Smedleyman posted. (E_B thinks it was ironic. I think that's irrelevant.) But first of all, I'm not sure what you expect when you waste your time arguing with a guy who calls himself "If I Had an Anus"; and second of all, I'm pretty sure you've agreed with me elsewhere that MeFi should have zero-tolerance for dropping real names. You've certainly kicked up some sandstorms about your own. So...14 times. 'Nuff said.
posted by cribcage at 11:00 AM on March 26, 2006

Try a little thought experiment: had I said "I can't understand why any of you guys react so badly to each other. Is it something in the water? Something to do with our style of parenting? poor schooling? what?" would you have thought it was smug, or tongue-clucking?

Ah, so your query about our water supply is sincere then, is it?

People's reacting badly to each other, short tempers, snippiness, ability to 'play well with others'...can't have anything to do with culture, can it?

You're really setting yourself up for the football hooligan jab, aren't you?
posted by scody at 11:30 AM on March 26, 2006

Hell, for that matter, how do you explain the Bros. Gallagher? Secretly American, are they, ol' Liam and Noel?
posted by scody at 11:32 AM on March 26, 2006

Nice one, cribcage. I've been participating in this thread since my first comment yesterday.

My comment - the one you and scarabic object to - was not xenophobic, nor 'nose-in-the-air', nor snippy. I am not 'preaching about the high road', any more than others who ask for civility are. There seems to be some assumption about class here, if my interpretations of those italicised phrases are correct.

I continue to be interested in us culture, which seems often to be abrasive, and this is not the first time I've referred to that side of it.

You seem to perceive any reference to that aspect, from a non-american, as jumping in, superiority on my part, possibly due to my being english (by the terms you use). Are only americans allowed to comment on US culture? I doubt that is mefi-style. I'm sure that you feel free to express what you like about british culture. And that's quite ok. But I would advise anyone to avoid assumptions about class, as I would not be able to classify myself socially anyway (tho working class is closest).

The comment scarabic objects to is speculation - containing a genuine question. 'Why do you guys get so petty, so quickly?'

Admittedly, Mefi is my main exposure to the blogosphere, but the guys at Kos, Firedoglake, and L*F are equally quick on the trigger. Why is that?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:35 AM on March 26, 2006

Scody - you'll notice that I do not say all americans, always ...

We are talking specifically about the culture of blogging here. I have yet to read gallagher.blogspot.com. And doubt it would be very illuminating or interesting, let alone literate.

/off out for a pint and a rumble.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:38 AM on March 26, 2006

Sorry to introduce a linguistic query into this shitfesten, but why would being called a 'fucker' - other than being coarse - be insulting, going on it's literal meaning? Or 'wanker'?

You know, I agree with you. I'm not even sure what being called a 'fucker' means. I know it's suppose to be an insult, but I'm not even sure what I should object to ;)
posted by justgary at 2:00 PM on March 26, 2006

Ortho,

Sorry, I can't fully agree with you on the "fucking your mother" thing.
Some insults are greater than their individual components. For example, "bastard" is insulting, even though it just means "one whose parents aren't married". "Wanker" means "someone who masturbates", which is pretty much everyone, and yet it is an insult.
On the other end, we have insults which are less than their individual components. "Motherfucker" means (usually) one who commits incest with ones' own mother (the occassional "fucker of other mothers" meaning being the exception, not the rule).

Plus, you have denotation versus connotation. "Son of a bitch" means "son of a female dog", but is really just used to mean "person I don't like". "You pound your mom in the ass", while not a set-in-stone phrase, comes from the "motherfucker" family tree (help me out here, languagehat), and while it may technically refer to incest, in reality is just used to mean "you suck" (which, of course, is short for "you suck penis", but doesn't literally mean it, and is just used to mean "I don't like you").

Point is, yeah, insulting people's mothers is bad form. When done seriously, it's extremely bad form. However, in the way it was done in this thread, it was no more bad form than calling someone a "motherfucking asshole" or "dickhead" or "son of a bitch" or other expression which doesn't actually mean what it says. Which, of course, are all bad form, and not something that makes MeFi a great place, but none of which are something which I think deserves special censure above and beyond other basic profane insults.
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on March 26, 2006

You know what, bugbread? That's quite informative. I always thought that 'you suck' had the meaning you give it, but considering it's prevelance on imported daytime/kids tv, I also thought it must have a more innocuous meaning.

I guess my confusion arises from the fact that so many folks dish it out, and cannot take it. If the cursing is supposed to be offhand, casual, meaningless, then why doesn't the listener [who is likely also a speaker of same] discount it? If the listener is one who rarely curses, then that will be because of a conscious decision, probably because they see no positive benefit to their cause in making verbal assaults. If the listener is one who frequently curses, then they are receiving what they commonly give out, and should equally discount it as par for the course.

Thinking aloud here: it seems to be the emotion - generally anger, or associated feelings - which is the wrapper around the words that hurts/offends/assaults. So, when a guy I'm kidding says 'fuck off!', I'm forgiven because I kid my mates and that's allowed. The tone is friendly.
When a guy whose tone is flat - like all screen communication is - says 'fuck off!', I assume he's angry, and I don't want his anger so I reject him harder than he rejected me.

It reminds me of the story in Siddhartha about the young student who doesn't understand why the Buddha doesn't get upset when approached in anger by the student: Siddhartha says "If I am offered a gift by a donor, but decline it without comment, who now owns that gift?"

What if we all refused to accept the anger of another - like it was an unwanted gift?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:52 PM on March 26, 2006

DO NOT SPIT

- the Management
posted by flabdablet at 4:01 PM on March 26, 2006

Many members here would much rather use the right to verbally abuse each other than to accept the responsibility to be civil.

Aye. But then again, I'm not exactly blameless there, either. I do wonder, like you, how much of that is American, and linked to the idolatry of 'free speech'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:02 PM on March 26, 2006

What, exactly, is the "idolatry of free speech?"

I studied Milton for two years, and I think that I know what idolatry is-- the worship of a symbol rather than the "real thing," but I can't understand what the "idolatry of free speech" is. Are you implying that free speech is the idol, and that productive discourse is the god? Or that free speech is the god, and rudeness/cruelty is the idol?

(not kidding)
posted by Kwantsar at 4:35 PM on March 26, 2006

cribcage writes "orthogonality: You just typed the name 'Dan' 14 times, dude."

cribcage: "Dan" doesn't out anyone. That's a red herring Dan introduced. I was using "Dan" simply as shorthand for "If I Had An anus"'s original account "DanOStuporstar". As "Dan" is also his IRC handle, it was just simpler and less confusing to type"Dan" rather than "If I Had an anus aka DanOStuporStar". And frankly, I cringe whenever I have to type out "If I Had An Anus".

Dan" isn't an uncommon name, it's the initial part of his original handle, it included no last name. It's no different that referring to me as "ortho".

"But first of all, I'm not sure what you expect when you waste your time arguing with a guy who calls himself 'If I Had an Anus';"

Yes, you're right.


bugbread writes "Sorry, I can't fully agree with you on the 'fucking your mother' thing."

Buugbread, had dan -- had "Anus" just used "motherfucker" I'd have seen it as a typical insult, not to be taken literally. He didn't. Instead he accused me (and my mother) of a particular degrading act, daily repeated: "banging her in the ass every night."

Please bugbread, the guy was being malicious, in a detailed and unambiguously insulting way, to a women who has never posted here. And all you can do, in your enimently reasonable way, is discuss etymology and other sophistries.
posted by orthogonality at 4:46 PM on March 26, 2006

I studied Milton for two years, and I think that I know what idolatry is-- the worship of a symbol rather than the "real thing," but I can't understand what the "idolatry of free speech" is.

Oh, come on. It's not that hard to parse out. In a nation (to pick out a few examples) that is so fearful of the power of words that you use clumsy workarounds like 'the n word' or 'the c word', where university campuses have strict rules about what young people may and may not say to each other and what professors may say to their students, in a country where public figures are regularly accused of aiding and abetting 'the enemy' merely because they admit that things are going wrong in your little war.... it's clear to anyone who thinks about it that the symbolic importance of free speech is what is cherished, over the actual reality.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:03 PM on March 26, 2006

Also, I think the user name in question was meant to be Ifiha Dan Us, which sounds vaguely Celtic, but he screwed up on the capitalization. See, not puerile at all!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:05 PM on March 26, 2006

the symbolic importance of free speech is what is cherished, over the actual reality.

And in case it's still unclear, that's why I put scare quotes around 'free speech' in my original comment. Got me?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:15 PM on March 26, 2006

Well, that sure is a fine comment.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:26 PM on March 26, 2006

Hmm. I'll pass on trying my hand on an analysis of internet rudeness built around extremely broad generalizations. I do wonder, however, why this thread attracted so much late-stage animosity.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:41 PM on March 26, 2006

Incidentally, I'm not implying, nor do I believe, that this applies to anyone here—but I wonder how much this "idolatry" of free-speech arises from the common misunderstanding that, in the US, any and all public speech, in any forum, has legal protection. Even, I think, to the extreme that people believe that it is right and necessary to socially sanction all speech—that to socially bridle speech is morally wrong.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:51 PM on March 26, 2006

...which we see manifested when (usually Americans) express their shock and dismay at Canadian laws that limit what they understand to be freedom of speech. We're not disagreeing here.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:58 PM on March 26, 2006

Just went and visited that thread.

bshort: you are, indeed, a shithead.
posted by flabdablet at 6:10 PM on March 26, 2006

So, that was all worth it, then...
posted by dash_slot- at 6:17 PM on March 26, 2006

Sheesh.
According to Robert's Rules of Playground Order, the only time comments regarding another member's mother(Also known as 'Yo Mama, Yer Ma, et al') are innapropriate is when said mother has shuffled off their mortal coil. If the offending member is unaware of this, protocol dictates an uncomfortable pause, followed by a heart-felt apology upon being informed of this situation.
Otherwise, the handbook recommends either defending one's libelled mother's honor by coming up with a devastating comeback, or recognizing the statement as being simply silly, and choosing to disregard it. There is no mention of getting huffy and whipping out the legalese.
Again, sheesh.

Oh, and pyramid termite: What you heard about me was true, but in my defense, she baaed that she was 21, I swear!

Coming to you from an undisclosed location, I remain Alvy Ampersand, currently on the lam for being on the lamb.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:12 PM on March 26, 2006

Are only americans allowed to comment on US culture?

Of course not. But when your comment derides US culture and an American responds in kind, it's pretty damn disingenuous for you to ring the xenophobia bell.

Are only blacks allowed to comment on black culture? Of course not. But when a white guy makes a crack about black teenagers always talking loudly in movie theaters and a black fella replies that maybe Joe Honky should waddle back into his trailer and turn on Springer, whitey don't get to yell, "That's racist!!"

I like your Siddhartha story, though.
posted by cribcage at 8:41 PM on March 26, 2006

So we are all agreed then? bshort IS an asshole.
posted by Joeforking at 8:54 PM on March 26, 2006

Yeah, as much of an asshole as any other MeFite who has let a bad experience with another member cloud how they interact with them in future discussions.

Obviously, none of us have ever had that happen to us, right?

Getcher fully-castable first stones here, folks!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:02 PM on March 26, 2006

first week I was here someone called me a nazi. part of metafilter is about getting yelled at. just ignore the noise.
posted by Football Bat at 10:27 PM on March 26, 2006

My goodness.

I have to say that scanning this thread -- and seeing all these familiar posters with their hair down -- has greatly increased my admiration for the fact that they all manage to keep it together in the blue and green.

Sure, the religioius discussions quickly get out of hand, but other than that sisyphean challenge, the moderators are doing a very good job of encouraging civil discourse.

Thanks, Matt, jessamyn, and any others I haven't encountered yet. Your work is appreciated.
posted by tkolar at 11:20 PM on March 26, 2006

Thanks cribcage.

I didn't entirely deride us culture - there is a genuine query in there, and a throwaway remark about where the anger comes from - 'is it in the water, parenting, education?'. 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

However, the sensitivity shown on this thread to my comments helps me to understand why some folks are so quick on the trigger, and quick to take offence. I s'pose i could restate something about my attitude to americans in general. BUt that should be well known here by now.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:45 AM on March 27, 2006

I would like to apologize to the MetaFilter (not to ortho, of course) for my nasty comment above. Even under the best of readings, it was an inappropriate thing for one community member to say to another. I really love MetaFilter and comments such as mine hurt the spirit of the place. I regret making it. (If I had to make an excuse, I would mention that I was running a fever all weekend.)

I'm sorry.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:17 AM on March 27, 2006

dash_slot, I think that part of the reason people jumped on you so fast is that negative stereotypes of Americans in England are both well known and common. In fact, I once saw in a museum British cartoons from long before the American Revolution joking about the dumb, aggresive, poorly educated colonists in America. This is a tradition that goes back over 300 years. The English do not have a good reputation when it comes to anti-American Xenophobia, and this reputation is lowered even further due to the fact that many Americans have ancestors in countries that suffered from English aggression, such as Ireland. Therefore, careful politeness might be indicated, less you be taken as the typical rude Englishman sneering at the Americans.
posted by unreason at 6:40 AM on March 27, 2006

so unreason - English people are typically rude, eh? I suppose we've all got messed up teeth and can't cook as well, hmm?

/stirs the pot a wee bit more.
posted by longbaugh at 6:55 AM on March 27, 2006

so unreason - English people are typically rude, eh? I suppose we've all got messed up teeth and can't cook as well, hmm?

/stirs the pot a wee bit more.
posted by longbaugh at 9:55 AM EST on March 27 [!]

My apologies, I meant to say stereotypical.
posted by unreason at 7:04 AM on March 27, 2006

This thread just made The Baby Infinite weep tears of yo' mama's menstrual blood. In England.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:30 AM on March 27, 2006

Oh come on, do people seriously think about the English history of oppression of the Irish even for a little dig at Americans?

So what about modern day Irish people, living in Ireland, who have a dig at Americans, and sure know how to beat the English at that game?

(disclaimer: I am neither American nor English - I hate love you all equally! I'm still undecided on the Irish though)

The Brits sneer at everyone! You think you have it bad? Imagine the Germans. And there just isn't a single nationality, Americans included, that does not do the same to other countries and is not in return the butt of jokes and stereotypes of a varying nature, from nasty to harmless. It's the most popular international sport. You should travel more, but then, you're Americans, what do you know*... A single "is it something about the parenting" is nothing compared to what's out there. And the US is a big strong nation, you can take it! You have New York, Hollywood, the Grand Canyon, NASA, California sunshine, Coca Cola, the Marines, Bill Gates, Britney and Beyonce **... What about Belgium? poor little dreary grey Belgium, universally derided and scorned, famous only for chocolate and pedophiles? Please think of the Belgians. It'll put everything in perspective.


*only joking!
**not meant to be an exhaustive list, nor a value judgement classification, just, you know, that's all really big stuff...
posted by funambulist at 7:31 AM on March 27, 2006

If I'm going to be called a Nazi anyway, I might as well join and at least enjoy the retirement benefits.

I suppose we've all got messed up teeth and can't cook as well, hmm?

Yes. In addition to your stiff, joyless, protestant love-making.
posted by dgaicun at 7:31 AM on March 27, 2006

I like English cooking

/hangs head in shame
posted by unreason at 7:34 AM on March 27, 2006

I like stiff, joyless love-making

/lifts head in triumph
posted by dgaicun at 7:39 AM on March 27, 2006

Yes. In addition to your stiff, joyless, protestant love-making.

Thanks for the feedback dgaicun - for a change tonight I shall make love drunk, whilst playing a fiddle and singing "The Irish Rover". Tomorrow night I shall make love like an American by taking some drug just to get an erection and then setting up some scaffolding so that I can find my penis beneath the layers of fat.

I love stereotypes.
posted by longbaugh at 7:42 AM on March 27, 2006

and how do Canadians make love?
posted by funambulist at 7:44 AM on March 27, 2006

and how do Canadians make love?
posted by funambulist at 10:44 AM EST on March 27 [!]

While wearing parkas, of course. In their Igloos. While eating moosemeat and drinking maple syrup out of the bottle!
posted by unreason at 7:46 AM on March 27, 2006

Sex without drugs and scaffolding is like music without notes.
posted by dgaicun at 7:49 AM on March 27, 2006

wow, that sounds complicated, kudos to Canadians!

but not as complicated as the French, who... make love with a baguette in their ass while smoking gauloises and burning cars outside the Sorbonne! or something...

ok, I give up, I'm not as good as you guys
posted by funambulist at 8:02 AM on March 27, 2006

but not as complicated as the French, who... make love with a baguette in their ass while smoking gauloises and burning cars outside the Sorbonne! or something...

ok, I give up, I'm not as good as you guys
posted by funambulist at 11:02 AM EST on March 27 [!]

I think the Eiffel Tower is involved somehow.
posted by unreason at 8:03 AM on March 27, 2006

That would be -

"Je prends un pain français dans mon frou frou. Mon Tour Eiffel éjacule avec joie. Vous avez- une cigarette que je peux fumer tandis que j'observe les voitures brûlantes?"

/probably.
posted by longbaugh at 8:31 AM on March 27, 2006

unreason:
you make some serious points here. I would rather not respond, as this thread has taken a nice lighthearthed turn, and I wanted to let it end on that sort of a note (as if that's in my gift!].
Just to add this - I maintain careful politeness at all times here! Surely you aren't saying that my comment about the mystery of american culture, misunderstood as it still is, was rude, by Mefi standards? Poorly phrased, casual, flippant or inane, yeah. I do not indulge in abuse, and the idea that I should be more polite than I already am makes me shudder.

Given previous comments I've made about american generosity and openness, it should be obvious that I am generally well disposed to the common or garden yank*, and (apart from the odd Kansas school district's science policy) have few preconceptions about US education. In case you were unaware, I have (being in England with an obvious Irish name) heard many a barb aimed at my mum & dad's birth country. It's not difficult to raise a laugh back with a verbal retort.

*This is not necessarily a derogatory term in England.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:33 AM on March 27, 2006

"What about Belgium? poor little dreary grey Belgium, universally derided and scorned, famous only for chocolate and pedophiles?"

Don't forget about the beer, Mr. Lime.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:21 AM on March 27, 2006

French fries are allegedly a Belgian invention. Tintin and the Smurfs certainly are.
posted by longbaugh at 10:28 AM on March 27, 2006

I would rather not respond, as this thread has taken a nice lighthearthed turn, and I wanted to let it end on that sort of a note

Yeah, I'd like it to end that way too. Sorry about being an ass back there, dash_slot.
posted by unreason at 10:41 AM on March 27, 2006

You're welcome (I didn't think you were being an ass. I reserve that epithet only for braying hooray henrys!)
posted by dash_slot- at 10:57 AM on March 27, 2006